EU MPs get the message (an earful)

@ur momisugly Ferdinand Engelbeen (01:45:08) :

If the real sensitivity for 2xCO2 is higher (as the IPCC and all climate models says) or lower (as many skeptics expect) than 0.9 C, that still is an open question, but it is certainly not zero…

That is the very issue as to why an increasing number of people are arguing against the AGW crowd: It IS and open question.
The AGW people have not
A.) Proven that their hypothesis is even true
B.) Used a process of elimination to exclude other possible causes (solar irradiance, cosmic rays, natural variation, Milankovitch cycles, etc.) of increased temperature trends,
and as the Climategate emails have depicted, the data seems to have been adjusted in some squirrely ways (which therefore need to be revisited and corrected), so
C.) Their data has not been properly vetted in the first place, therefore even their data should have been not trusted until replicated/vetted – meaning no one should have accepted the claims of warming in the first place. Of course, since 1990 anyone who seemed suspicious of the data was considered some kind of tin-foil crank, and Climategate is showing that maybe the cranks were right after all. (All the trust and confidence the vast majority of people had given – that scientists would be honest and objective and follow the scientific method – seems to have been misplaced, since several recent looks at the raw data and the adjustments that have been made – like the NZ data – show that at least some of the “rise” in temps is all in the adjustments, not in the raw data.)
Therefore if
D.) the warming is in the data adjustments, not in the raw data
E.) the central clearing house of the data – HADCRU at East Anglia, acting for the IPCC – cannot even FIND their data to share with those who want to replicate it (and if, as HARRY_READ_ME.txt shows, even their own people cannot make heads or tails of their data)
F.) the satellite AND weather balloons do not agree with the adjusted data – but DO agree much more closely with the raw data
G.) the climate modeling programs have neither been able to replicate recent climate years nor been correct in their predictions of the 2000-2009 slight decrease in warming (and that is in the now highly suspect adjusted data)
– if all that is the case (and it is not the entire case against AGW, not by a long shot), it is incumbent on the AGW drowd to do any proving of CO2 effects, not for their skeptics to prove CO2’s innocence.
If there is a man-made effect on the climate, all evidence (principally the urban heat index) leans toward land use as being a far bigger factor than CO2 could possibly be, so even if AGW is happening, I argue that they are barking up the wrong anthropogenic tree.
In addition, it is already being seen that CO2 is causing greater plant growth. NO ONE would argue that more plant life is a negative thing. The Greens should be celebrating increased CO2 in the atmosphere, if anything.
.

Continuing my previous comment, briefly:
The current lively and heated debate is one that should have taken place back in the 1988-1995 period, and the AGW side should have been told to put up or shut up and go home. I’ve been finding out about the early meetings at which the “consensus” was arrived at, and it turns out the invitees to the early conferences at which the UNEP and the IPCC were created did not even include anyone who disagreed with the premise. So, of COURSE there was a consensus – everyone there was already personally convinced of its truth. All opponents were excluded from those conferences.
Out of those came the declaration that it was all “settled science.” No it wasn’t.
And when the individuals in opposition to it spoke up later on, those opponents were castigated as radicals and cranks and skeptics – and now are referred to as “denialists” and “deniers,” which terminology is intentionally aimed at equating them with holocaust deniers.
The debate that should have taken place before such things as the UNEP or the IPCC were ever formed have only now begun to take place – TWENTY YEARS LATE!
It is my semi-informed opinion that there is a coincidence that needs to be looked into and looked into HARD:
The two decades of the 1990s have been the period when the ADJUSTED data shows a steep incline in the global average temperature (as measured by met stations), and this also happens to be the period in which the data has actively been “homogenized” (HADCRU’s term), which means adjusted.
Since it was in the interests of the UNEP and the IPCC and HADCRU and its followers (HADCRU was, indeed, the central focus of climate data processing and publicizing) to see global temperatures rising, and
since it was the homogenized data (not the raw data) that shows this rise in global average temps,
it seems very suspicious that the very people whose organizations and careers and incomes are dependent upon global warming being shown to be real.
I accuse them of having a predetermined conclusion, and that when the data did not show such agreement with that conclusion, they intentionally distorted the data adjustments. I further accuse them of hiding the evidence of their fudging of the data and continue to hide the data, in terms of resisting FOI/FOIA requests, as well as partial releases of data which can not be made sense of in its released state, as well as not releasing their methodology specifics so that people even know what it is they are trying to replicate. This is like a chemist inventing a new process, and then releasing only a partial list of chemicals involved and not telling what was done to the chemicals involved. Less than complete release of the data and methodology is the same as conspiring to cover up a crime.
And the crime is FRAUD.