SkepticalScience.com - Climate Myths Sorted by Taxonomy

Of course, it’s impossible to discuss climate science findings without also being confronted with the endless repetitive cross-fire from the bullhorns of naysayers and their bias driven unidirectional skepticism and disconnected-from-physical-reality lies.  

As a result the folks at SkepticalScience.com made a point of studying contrarian claims and then explaining the real science that climate science “skeptics” consistently choose to ignore.

Republicans have a hubristic confidence in their own self-interest, and because they’ve convinced themselves that they possess God in their back pockets, it’s okay for them to disregard fundamental geophysical evidence and facts.  It's lunatic thinking, still here we are.

The real tragedy is that nobody is interested in learning.  They only know their personal wants and by their actions and words, they appear to lack intellectual integrity, how else could they so easily refuse to listen, let alone learn lessons, all the while shamelessly repeating the same juvenile nonsense over and over and over again.  

What kind of nonsense you ask?  Well, take a look,

SkepticalScience.com, Climate Myths sorted by taxonomy

• It's not happening
• Temp record is unreliable
• Hockey stick is broken
• Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
• Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
• Dropped stations introduce warming bias
• It's Urban Heat Island effect
• 1934 - hottest year on record
• It's microsite influences
• Satellite error inflated Great Lakes temperatures
• Satellite record is more reliable than thermometers
• It's cooling
• We're heading into an ice age
• It's freaking cold!
• Record snowfall disproves global warming
• Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009
• 2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells
• Oceans are cooling
• It hasn't warmed since 1998
• Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
• Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????

CO2 Science (2)-Proof is in the pudding! Impossible Modern Marvels

Exhibit two for Pruitt's 'Red team Blue team Challenge' is a followup to United States Air Forces intensive atmospheric studies during the 1950s to 1970s, namely a list of many of the subsequent modern marvels that would have been impossible without scientists having achieved an exquisitely accurate understanding of greenhouse gas behaviour throughout our atmospheric column.

This was written to supplement the previous review of USA' atmospheric research and to explain why a layperson should feel very comfortable trusting, heck believing, scientists and their atmospheric studies.  

I must add that this post is an interesting sort of one way collaborative effort.  You see, over the years I've communicated with a number of scientists and grads.  Asking straight forward questions and often receiving informative replies.  I try not to over do my welcome, after all these are very busy professionals with more important things to do. Still, for this post I sent a grand shout out to a number of my correspondence pals and received more responses than I expected including some informative surprises for me. I have taken great liberty slicing and dicing their contributions. Rewriting some, leaving other quotes untouched and giving all of it some order.

I mention this because I want to be clear the following List of "  CO₂ science dependent" modern marvels is not my own cleverness and I send a big Thank You! out to my informed anonymous heroes!  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The increase in atmospheric concentration of CO₂ since preindustrial times is a given. Appreciate that the radiative physics of greenhouse gases are very well-understood.

Consider heat seeking missiles flying through different altitudes searching for a heat source who's signature is changing with altitude.  In order to program the computer, the programmer must know how to accurately compensate for the changing signature.  It requires a complete knowledge of the radiative properties of all the gases throughout the atmosphere, or all that hardware is for naught.

{Incidentally, there is not one contrarian "theory" or challenge to the physics that hasn't been looked at by informed individuals.  You'll find that contrarian errors, omissions, and falsifications have been clearly explained.  

Don't believe me, look at this outline for yourself: 

 http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

CO2 Science - Why We Can Be Sure.

This post is an interesting sort of one way collaborative effort and I've posted it before, but its worth repeating. You see, over the years I've communicated with a number of scientists and grads.  Asking straight forward questions and often receiving informative replies.  I try not to over do my welcome, after all these are very busy people with more important things to do. Still, for this post I sent a grand shout out to a number of my correspondence pals and received more responses than I expected including some informative surprises for me. I have taken great liberty slicing and dicing their responses. Rewriting some, leaving other quotes untouched and giving all of it some order.

I mention this because I want to be clear the following List of "CO2 science dependent" modern marvels is not my own cleverness and I want to send out a big Thank You! to my informed anonymous heroes!  

Also see

Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, 
Cambridge Research Lab

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EJOO3xAjTk

You've probably heard that carbon dioxide is warming the Earth. But how exactly is it doing it? Lieven Scheire uses a rainbow, a light bulb and a bit of quantum physics to describe the science behind global warming. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 since preindustrial times is a given. Understand that the radiative physics of greenhouse gases are very well-understood.

Consider heat seeking missiles flying through different altitudes searching for a heat source who's signature is changing with altitude.  In order to program the computer, the programmer must know how to accurately compensate for the changing signature.  It requires a complete knowledge of the radiative properties of all the gases in the atmosphere, or all that hardware is for naught.

{Incidentally, there is not one contrarian "theory" or challenge to the physics that hasn't been looked at by informed individuals.  You'll find that contrarian errors, omissions, and falsifications have been clearly explained.  Don't believe me, check it out for yourself: 
 http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

Continue for the list of CO2 dependent modern marvels:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

* Weather satellites that can image heat and moisture and wind's effects into comprehensible images.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

* Precipitable water. Contrast brightness temperatures measured via oxygen emissions and via H2O emissions to back calculate how much water is present.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

* Heat seeking air to air missiles, they would not function if those guidence computers didn't have a complete description of how heat moves through the atmosphere.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

*  Lasers wouldn't work if we had radiative physics wrong.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

* Early-Warning satellites.  How are they going to distinguish between a missile launch from lightning, over Siberia?  Better look at IR in DETAIL!   (There's much more)

The Non-Expert Problem - Why We Can Be Sure of CO2 Science.

A List of CO2 Science Dependent Modern Marvels proving climate scientists know what they are talking about.

Recently I got sucked back into my real passion, defending serious climate science against the cynical malicious lie dependent attacks it's been under for decades, by an odd exposition by Dilbert's Scott Adams aptly titled, "The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science."  Adams launches into a truly delusional attack on the validity of serious scientists and their work.  It wasn't a great surprise to find that Adams seems to be a Trump supporter, thus it explains his easy disconnect from objective evidence and facts when they doesn't suit his paranoid outlook. (repair edit 1219/16)

Besides writing my own review, "Profiles in Self-delusion - Dilbert's Scott Adams," I also participated in the discussion over there and was again amazed at how many people can in total seriousness claim that there's no valid evidence that CO2 causes our current global warming.

As one of the climate science non-experts, (although with pretty near 50 years of interest and active learning under my belt, I like to think I understand it better than your average bear), still how do I know that I haven't been lied to for the past fifty years?  How do I, a man who is incapable of comprehending their formulas or the details of their climate models, be so certain that what they are telling me is true?

Well it comes down to acknowledging reality.  On two levels, for one, having listened to easily over a hundred scientists giving talks about their work, I know that they are full-spectrum skeptics.  They put themselves under as sharp a microscope as they do others.  It is a huge active community of intelligent competing individuals always checking and cross checking each other's work.  It is the best humans are capable of, sure beats basing one's beliefs on personal Faith and then bending all facts to fit those personal beliefs.

The second level is the physical reality of being able to master one's numbers and understanding to practical purposes.  I believe it is tragic how many citizens don't have the first clue that our precise CO2 science was acquired by Air Force scientists, working independently from many countries, foremost USA, Australia, Russia and others.  Everyone came up with the same results - that ought to tell a skeptic something!

Of course, there is also the physical reality of what we are observing throughout our planet.

Even more telling is that fundamental understanding out of which all other Climate Science flows, has been transformed into an incredible number of modern marvels that would be utterly impossible if the scientists were bluffing it.  Here, let me show you with a reprint of something I put together a while back.

This post is an interesting sort of one way collaborative effort.  
You see, over the years I've communicated with a number of scientists and grads.  
Asking straight forward questions and often receiving informative replies.  I try not to over do my welcome, after all these are very busy people with more important things to do.

But for this post I sent out a grand shout to a number of my correspondence pals and received more responses than I expected including some informative surprises for me. 

I have taken great liberty slicing and dicing their responses. Rewriting some, leaving other quotes untouched and giving all of it some order.

I mention this because I want to be clear the following List of "CO2 science dependent" modern marvels is not my own cleverness and I want to send out a big Thank You! to my informed anonymous heroes!  

Also see: February 21, 2016

Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, 
Cambridge Research Lab

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 since preindustrial times is a given. Understand that the radiative physics of greenhouse gases are very well-understood.

Consider heat seeking missiles flying through different altitudes searching for a heat source who's signature is changing with altitude.  In order to program the computer, the programmer must know how to accurately compensate for the changing signature.  It requires a complete knowledge of the radiative properties of all the gases in the atmosphere, or all that hardware is for naught.

{Incidentally, there is not one contrarian "theory" or challenge to the physics that hasn't been looked at by informed individuals.  You just have to poke around, you'll find that contrarian errors, omissions, and falsifications have been clearly explained.      
 http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

The list:

Profiles in Self-delusion - Dilbert’s Scott Adams

The cartoonist responsible for the “Dilbert” strip has decided to expand his reach into writing on climate science.  His first endeavor is such an excellent example of the self delusional mind doing it’s best to rationalize and embrace an avoidance of fundamental reality that I’ve decide to make a case study of it.

Victor Venema at VariableVariablity.blogspot.com has already written an interesting fairly detailed rebuttal at “Scott Adams: The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science” and I recommend it because Victor, in keeping with his serious scientific sensibilities, offers Scott Adams’ the benefit of the doubt and takes the time to explain why Adams’ claims are misleading.

However, Scott Adams’ words convince me that his is nothing more than another cynical con game utilizing well worn tactics of strategic denial.  His exercise had nothing to do with an honest person trying to constructively explain his misgivings in an effort at better understanding. 

In this review I intent to focus on examining his disingenuous contrivances. 

First off please notice, rather than focusing on reviewing climate science fundamentals and known facts, Adams distracts with ‘slight of phrasing’ to draw the discussion away from where it needs to go, all the while striving to surreptitiously inoculate his audience with distrust and confusion at every turn.

The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science, by Scott Adams

December 5th, 2016 - tagged: #trump, #climate science

It seems to me that a majority of experts could be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like this

1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed. For example, “Global warming” evolved to “climate change” because the models didn’t show universal warming.

Recurrent Fury: Conspiratorial Discourse in the Blogosphere

Looks like a SkepticalScience.com double-header considering the noteworthy Guardian.com article by Dana Nuccitelli that SkS shared this morning.  The reason is that I know all too well that implying a grand conspiracy, denigrating scientists and the reactionary dismissal of the significance of a "97% consensus" among actual experts regarding the causes and dangers of society's relentless injection of atmospheric insulation (read greenhouse gases) are about all we can get out of climate science contrarians these days, so I thought this was a must article to add to this collection.

It's about a new study:  "Recurrent Fury: Conspiratorial Discourse in the Blogosphere Triggered by Research on the Role of Conspiracist Ideation in Climate Denial"

By Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, Klaus Oberauer, Scott Brophy, Elisabeth A. Lloyd, Michael Marriott

__________________________________________________

Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study

Posted on 8 July 2015 by dana1981

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-denial-linked-to-conspiratorial-thinking-recurrent-fury.html

A new study has examined the comments on climate science-denying blogs and found strong evidence of widespread conspiratorial thinking. The study looks at the comments made in response to a previous paper linking science denial and conspiracy theories.

Motivated rejection of science

Three years ago, social scientists Lewandowsky, Oberauer, and Gignac published a paper in the journal Psychological Science titled NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science. 

The paper detailed the evidence the scientists found that, using survey data provided by visitors to climate blogs, those exhibiting conspiratorial thinking are more likely to be skeptical of scientists’ conclusions about vaccinations, genetically modified foods, and climate change. This result was replicated in a follow-up study using a representative U.S. sample that obtained the same resultlinking conspiratorial thinking to climate denial.

Of course science denial and conspiracies go hand in hand

This shouldn’t be a terribly shocking result. When confronted with inconvenient science, those in denial often reject the evidence by accusing the experts of fraud or conspiracies. We saw a perfect example of this behavior just a few weeks ago. When scientists at NOAA published a paper finding that there was no ‘pause’ in global warming, one of the most common responses from those in denial involved the conspiratorial accusation that the scientists had somehow fudged the data at the behest of the Obama administration.

Nevertheless, nobody likes being characterized as a conspiracy theorist, and so those in the denial blogosphere reacted negatively to the research of Lewandowsky and colleagues. Ironically, many of the attacks on the study involved conspiratorial accusations, which simply provided more data for the social scientists to analyze. For example, the authors were accused of everything from faked data to collusion between Lewandowsky and the Australian government.

Considering examples of Lewandowsky's "Seepage" at the MET Office.

A spectator's perspective

Recently a team of researchers published a paper titled "Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community" - it looks at examples of how the fabricated contrarian talking points are impacting the way scientists describe their work and even what they study. 

It caught my attention because I've long been interested in better understanding, why that increasing disconnect between what most people believe about global warming and the reality unfolding upon this planet?

It's like the more information is gathered and the deeper the details we focus on, the less we're accepting what's happening.

It has been obvious to me that the cause of much misunderstanding has been decades worth of deliberate effort.  Fabricated confusion by a plethora of politically motivated groups such as the Marshall Institute, CATO, Heartland Institute - organizations who make no bones about their "mission," which was/is a ruthless dedication to winning and holding on to their "free" market political/economic agenda.  

Read their literature nowhere does learning how our planet operates appear among their stated priorities.  Yet, they are calling the shots of what's supposed to be a public education dialogue about climate science.

A digression, the Piers Corbyn Story

I'm active on the internet, commenting and responding to responses.  Once in a while a dialogue comes along I feel needs to be shared over here because of it's text book quality example of disconnect and climate science denial.

Although I didn't have time for this, especially not today, I'm a sucker for chasing such bones and since the name Piers Corbyn rang a bell but I couldn't place him.  I found myself googling him.  Oh yeah, that guy, Mr. the CO2 story is over Corbyn and his mini ice age machinations.  Eventually, I found myself listening to his YouTube "Weather Action Meeting 27/2/12" video which turned out to be an epic example of Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

Since I wasted so much precious time on this joker I'm going to get something constructive out of it by posting my findings over here.  I'll begin with P.M.'s phenomenal 700 word gish gallop dodge of the Earth observation sources I was sharing, such as NASA's summation of the evidence.  Following that I look at Piers' "Weather Action Meeting 27/2/12." 

Then I share a most excellent documentary that looks at our global heat and moisture distribution engine's various components and how they interact, followed by a couple video shorts from a real expert on greenhouse gases Professor Richard Alley as he explains the reality of CO2.

This in turn is followed by a score of links spanning 2005 to a couple months ago - for those who are interested in learning more about this example of Unidirectional Skepticism Piers Corbyn.
  
M.P. wrote:

This is what manufactured denial looks like. - Readfearn

Here's a recent must read article that I'd love to repost over here since it fits right into my collection.  But, I don't think this one's in the cards.  I can still post this teaser that hints at what you'll find within Readfearn's thorough expose'.  

_______________________

What happened to the lobbyists who tried to reshape 

the US view of climate change?

Climate change skepticism

Graham Readfearn

Friday 27 February 2015 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/27/what-happened-to-lobbyists-who-tried-reshape-us-view-climate-change

"In early 1998, ... 

Representatives from major fossil fuel corporations and industry groups had joined forces with operatives from major conservative think tanks and public relations experts to draft what they called their Global Climate Science Communications (GCSC) plan. 

In a memo the plan boldly declared its goal …" 

Considering the silliness of Dr. L.W. at SoD #2

Here's my last post regarding the denial games over at SoD.  I actually started with this review, but then Florifulgurator's comment came along and since it was much more interesting I took that digression.  Now I feel I still owe RD a rational accounting of Dr.LW's many fallacies since RD puts so much store in his spoof.

___________________________________________

The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof 

February 4, 2015 by ScienceofDoom

RD wrote on February 12, 2015 at 11:47am
The questions have appeared, as have two very thoughtful comments from L.W. Based on what he’s written, and your definition, and any additional concern you would have given because he’s Jewish, would you call him a climate change denier?
{...}
{CC: never did find any questions...}
RD wrote  February 12, 2015 at 3:54 pm
 ...    The questions have appeared, as have two very thoughtful comments from LW ...
This strikes me as a good question, because it’s precise. You’re responses have been very general. I’d like you to consider this very specific question. Thanks.

___________________________________

LW wrote: February 12, 2015 at 1:26 am

I started out conditionally accepting the AGW position because many experts claimed it was so. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

And I started out learning about our planet's geophysics and its atmosphere...

For the more complete response see:

Considering the silliness of Dr. L.W. (opening gambit) at SoD #1

_______________________________

LW wrote: However, I am a scientist, and looked in far more detail before I would accept it fully. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The discussion is supposed to be about discussing those details, not about self anointed authority.

_______________________________

LW wrote: I do not deny the basic science as stated by SoD and others. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Words are cheap.

_______________________________

LW wrote: With me, the issue is how much the human burning of fossil fuel affects the net result, and what is the supporting evidence of consequences.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

To understand any of that one must first understand our planet's CO2 cycle.  

As for supporting evidence, one must make the effort to become familiar with it, not hide from it.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

~ ~ ~

IPCC Working Group 1, the physical basis

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

~ ~ ~

SkepticalScience.com explaining the science

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

~ ~ ~

The Carbon Cycle

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/

~ ~ ~

The Global Carbon Cycle

University of Michigan

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/carbon_cycle.html

Considering the silliness of Dr. L.W. at SoD #1

I'm home alone and have been musing so instead of finishing my review of L.W.'s much commended comments, a reread had me turning my response
 to his opening gambit into a full length editorial of sorts.

___________________________________________________________

The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof

February 4, 2015 by scienceofdoom

__________________________________________ 

L.W. wrote February 12, 2015 at 1:26 am:I started out conditionally accepting the AGW position because many experts claimed it was so. 

~ ~ ~

Well there's the first mistake.  How about this:  

I started out learning about our Earth in high school (early 1970s) science classes, that led to the atmosphere, which inevitably led to learning about AGW.  The instructors with their text books (consensus) laid out the fundamentals of our atmosphere and how greenhouse gases behave.  That is, by allowing short-wave ultra-violet rays enter and warm Earth's surface and then catching the outflowing long-wave infrared rays.  Or more accurately slowing down their escape.

We also learned about the incredible amounts of fossil fuels our society (we) were burning.  This stuff was/is increasing our atmosphere's Heat Retention Ability.  That extra CO2, plain and simple was going to warm our planet.  Like putting on extra layers of clothing when you're already comfortable.  Simple down to Earth logic!

This atmospheric property doesn't turn on and off at will.  So when an incredibly complex  globally (actually, excluding polar regions) averaged surface temperature data set jogs up and down or stays down a little longer than most expected, I understood the place to look was within natural and manmade variability, and the measurements. not in pretending that the physics of greenhouse gases had gone on a vacation so that global warming could go on a "hiatus".  

Think about it, there is a big difference between the warming water in a kettle and our ability to measure the temp. profile of said steaming kettle. 

Considering the defensive offense at SoD, (R.D.)

One reason I'd have made a lousy scientist is that I get easily distracted, it's such a big fascinating world out there.  In any event, my Florifulgurator post was actually an offshoot of my review of one L.W.'s "highly recommended" comments.  Here's another offshoot of that since RD brings up a point of etiquette.

The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof

February 4, 2015 by scienceofdoom

__________________________________________

RD wrote  February 13, 2015 at 7:04 am:

     cc wrote: If that’s the best you have for a “question” I’m sorely disappointed.

You were expecting something good from me then? Where did that expectation come from? You’ve given me the impression only of having complete contempt for me. Am I wrong? Did you have some previous experience with me that was positive? I’ll single out, if I may, my latest question, lightly edited. I don’t know when it came out of moderation and therefore when you may have seen it.     The questions have appeared, as have two very   thoughtful comments from L.W. ...
This strikes me as a good question, because it’s precise. You’re responses have been very general. I’d like you to consider this very specific question. Thanks.

        _____________________________________________________

I didn't know RD from Adam, I was commenting on his words, the ideas he was sharing.  Rather than responding to my comments RD played the offended victim card.  I know it all too well, it's a rather typical defensive strategy (right up there with sarcastic dismissal) that deflects attention away from bankrupt arguments and affords an easy escape from considering the substance of the dialogue.

What ever happened to honest curiosity, grappling over the issues themselves, striving to understand what's being discussed on both sides?

What's wrong with being told: "you're 'wrong' and here and here is why I believe you are mistaken!"  Then slink off to examine and think about the here and here.  It's nothing personal.  It's about the desire to learn and understand, even to take learning from mistakes in stride.  Our egos, mighty important though they are, shouldn't supersede our honest desire to understand the world around us and our place in it.

"Denying denial at Science of Doom #1c Flori's comments" only links

Just the links from 
Denying denial at Science of Doom 
#1 Florifulgurator's comments

____________________________________________
Summary of key points:

Why trust scientists?

CO2 saturation?

Political leaders and public's right to learn without malicious interference!

Serious science is not about "tolerance of diversity" 
Science is about pinning down the facts as well as possible
and always learning. 

Good prima facie evidence?

Syria, conflict and drought?

Do full bellies dictate a people's sense of wellbeing and satisfaction?

It's not about relying "only on what others are telling us."   

It's about trusting a huge community of experts 
who keep each other honest !

Moral "equivalence" and coming catastrophe.

What is Catastrophic Climate Change?

________________________

Naomi Oreskes: Why we should trust scientists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxyQNEVOElU

Richard Alley: Who says CO2 heats things up?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/JoR4ezwKh5E

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

An Essay Concerning Our Weather 1995

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/An+essay+concerning+our+weather.-a017529280 

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/02/essay-concerning-our-weather.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"EXPOSED - The RealClimate.org's "McKitrick and McIntyre" Files"

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/07/exposed-realclimateorgs-mckitrick-and.html

~ ~ ~

Forcing, feedback and internal variability in global temperature trends

 Nature by Jochem Marotzke and Piers Forster

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7536/nature14117/metrics

~ ~ ~

1956 American Scientist Gilbert Plass article explores AGW

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/1/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate

~ ~ ~

Is the CO2 effect saturated?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

~ ~ ~