Catastrophically cartooned

Monty says:
May 3, 2012 at 7:57 am
Hi Bruce
You obviously don’t understand. What I am asking is how the climate warms when: TSI shows no trend, cloudiness shows no real trend, GCRs show no real trend……and yet C02 shows a consistent year on year increase?
Yes, we are skeptics. The question you wrote is unanswered, and the answer may well deserve recognition and rewards, the Nobel among them.
Now, let me ask it again: What is the observed, measured, real-world relationship between CO2 (in specific, NOT generic “greenhouse gasses” or the generic “greenhouse effect”) as it is used to demand 1.3 trillion in added taxes and controls from the US economy alone?
While CO2 was steady, we have seen temperatures rise by 1-1/2 to 2 degrees, remain steady for one to three decades, and fallen by 1-1/2 to 2 degrees.
While CO2 has risen by over 30% we have measured temperatures rising by 1/2 of one degree, remain steady for 10 – 15 years, and fallen by 1/2 of one degree. (At least, they were measured falling BEFORE your hallowed CAGW so-called scientists fiddled with their temperature records……)
The ONLY way your ever-so “scientific”, government-paid models designed by government-paid “scientists” and reviewed and promoted by other government-paid “scientists” can get the results the government-paid agencies and their government-paid policy makers want is to deliberately adjust both the assumed CO2 feedback within their government-paid computers and also their assumed government-inspired aerosol levels (NOT measured worldwide aerosol levels at all!) to match the government-adjusted temperature records that the government-paid agencies are paying for to gain the control over the economies and tax revenues that the government wants.
So, who is paying your salary? .

Monty says:
May 3, 2012 at 8:50 am
Hi RACookPE1978.
You said: “government-paid models designed by government-paid “scientists” and reviewed and promoted by other government-paid “scientists” can get the results the government-paid agencies and their government-paid policy makers”,
See this isn’t about science for you at all, is it? It’s about politics. The problem is…understanding climate change is a science. What we do about it, is politics. I’m talking about the former. You are fixated about the latter.
If – big “if” there, by the way – if YOU could take the politics (and the money, and the economic control, and the taxes, and the emotionalism, and the CAGW (deliberately-inspired) Fear, and the power, and the economic and health devastation deliberately CAUSED BY the afore-mentioned CAGW Fear) ) out of the discussion, you might have a case to begin discussing CAGW “scientifically” ….
But You, the CAGW community that is using your biases and predjucies to control the so-called “scientific” debate, cannot separate the politics from the debate because you have no independent, measured, real-world basis for your so-called “scientific” discussion. As shown above, there is No Relationship you can establish at any time in history (satellite, analog measured, paleo-historic, or geologic) that confirms your biases and prejudices that varying CO2 levels affect earth’s temperatures.
And that is the question. You have absolutely no “scientific” basis for your claims of a relationship. Thus, you must – to force your prejudices and biases on the world, step up the political and theist (religious-levels) of dogma and “belief” and so-called “logic.” (CO2 is a so-called greenhouse gas, the earth’s temperature is controlled by greenhouse gasses, therefore rising CO2 forces a rise in temeperature. THAT is your only argument.
But it is NOT a “scientific” or an engineered, controlled, real-world argument.
For example, I claim (correctly) that water expands as it heats up.
So, therefore, you claim, based on my statement, that “Putting heat into water makes the water expand.” And YOU are wrong.
So, therefore, you claim, based on my statement, that “Putting heat into water makes its temperature go up.” And YOU are wrong.
I claim,correctly, that “Ice has a greater albedo than open water.”
Therefore, you claim, based on my statement, that “Reducing the minimum Arctic ice extents forces world’s temperatures to go up.”
And you are wrong. Because the measured data shows Arctic temperatures at 80 north are going down, and because – at the time of minimum ice extent, the sun’s energy is reflected off of the open water, not absorbed. Now, IF the Arctic ice were at the equator, and IF the time of the minimum ice extents were at mid-summer, and IF the open water did not reflect energy at low angles of incidence just as much as ice does, and IF the sun’s energy were not trying to pass through the equivalent of 11 thicknesses of atmospheres just to reach the Arctic ice at minimum extents, then – and only then – would your original claim be correct.
But your statement about a supposed positive ice albedo feedback, your ever-so-logical conclusion based on a limited number of self-selected real-world facts by your self-selected (prejudiced) world view is dead wrong. And you, the CAGW-community of politically and emotionally dominated alarmists are being paid (emotionally, politically, religiously, and physically and financially and socially by internal and external feedbacks from that same CAGW community) to create and maintain such an alarm.
Yes, please do so. Bring “science” into the debate. Keep “science” in the debate – but only science. But first, take the tax money that is paying out of it.