qanda writes:"It even explains feedbacks, something else you can't comprehend."

Now, since the only thing I've written about feedbacks is to mention their importance in the entire issue , I wonder how it is that qanda knows I can't comprehend them. Marvellous skills of deduction has our qanda, being able to deduce what I do and don't understand despite my never actually mentioning my understanding.

But I guess he thinks I don't understand feedbacks because I'm not a climate scientist whereas he is, at least in his own mind.

mhaze,

It wouldn't matter so much if the "skeptics" in the pay of big business actually produced valid scientific argument and empirical evidence to support their stance.

But they don't/can't, whatever.....

In the main they produce non-peer-reviewed "junk".

And in response to their lack of substance they indulge in a variety of strategies to muddy the waters.....it's the only recourse left to them in a situation where they cannot produce the "evidence" to support their stance.

Attacking peer-review is one of their strategies which goes to the heart of scientific process.

Dangerous waters methinks.

(mhaze - you are so typical of the common denialist. You insert your religious jargon as a matter of course [diabolically clever, indeed]- which, of course, is hilarious since the "skeptics" are the ones who are light empirical evidence and data...and heavy on smear, strategy and fairy dust)

Poirot, here is an example of non-peer-reviewed "junk":

mhaze says:

>> CO2 is indeed nearing saturation levels <<

I guess real climate science has got it all wrong, again:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Tweak your whiskers and have a good look at SPQR’s link:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Looks like SP and Geoffrey have got something in common:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

SP says: “Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist (in my first links) says 3.225%.”

Now have a closer look at SP’s link – the only thing Singer says is (quote):
“There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050.”

Entertaining but now quite boring - back to work I go.

Won't be back here Poirot so may as well show you this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-key-climate-indicators-point-to-same-finding-global-warming-is-unmistakable.html#19734

"Monte Hieb is the author of several popular web pages skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming, serving as an evangelist for the viewpoint (he does not state his qualification in climatology or a related science). He is an employee at the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Health, Safety, and Training."

Monte said it, not Fred :)

qanda purports to demonstrate my error by quoting me as " CO2 is indeed nearing saturation levels"...but the full quote is "CO2 is indeed nearing saturation levels and is indeed already there at some wave-lengths".

so we weren't talking about absolute saturation but saturation levels in regards to CO2's absorption efficacy. I did send a link through on this but I guess it went over qanda's head.

Just a quick lesson....CO2 doesn't absorb heat at all wavelengths but only selected ones. Most of the wavelengths affect by CO2 are also absorbed by water vapour as well. Consequently there are some wavelengths where all the heat is absorbed by the combination of CO2 and water vapour. For those wavelengths CO2 is at or close to saturation. Its rather fundamental...I'm surprised a climate scientist like qanda didn't understand it :)

Aw, qanda, don't go just yet...

You should stick around to take Monte's amazing "Global Warming Test":

(Pythonesque:)

http://www.desmogblog.com/are-you-a-global-warming-denier-take-the-heib-global-warming-test

...although I have my doubts as to whether you'd pass.

(P.S. - that's a good thing:)