[OT] How science is not done

On Sep 4, 6:53*pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"yourmommycalled" wrote in message

...
On Sep 4, 4:41 am, "Peter Webb"

I googled Dennis Avery, Richard Lindzen, and Tim Ball. All have them
have Wikipedia pages. None of the wikipedia pages mentions they have
worked for tobacco companies.

No you didn't google any of those people.

***********************
Obviously I did, if I found their Wikipedia pages.

If you are going to lie at
least try and do a decent job of it. A google search with lindzen and
tobacco has it's FIRST HITwww.tobaccodocuments.org, which the
repository of documents that were released as part of the tobacco
settlement. Dennis Avery is listed in the tobacco legacy project.

***********************
When I googled, I couldn't actually find what Lindzen was supposed to have
done exactly for the tobacco industry. I did find a whole lot about how he
is a full Professor of Metereology at MIT, did research at Harvard, at is an
AGW skeptic.

Your entire argument is an ad-hominem attack on AGW skeptics, including
myself. This is a typical strategy of cranks and conspiracy kooks - first
change the subject, then make ad-hominem attacks on the people who hold
contrary ideas, rather than the ideas themselves.



Before continuing please look up the definition of ad-hominem so that
you can use the phrase correctly next time. Indeed Lindzen is a
Professor at MIT and when he writes/published/speaks about the
kinematic and dynamic structure of long-waves in the atmosphere people
listen. When he proposed his "Iris theory" he received funding to test
the hypothesis. Unfortunately Lindzen's own results documented that
Iris effect was a positive feedback mechanism rather than a negative
feedback as Lindzen proposed. The reason Lindzen receive funding to do
the research was because there was testable science behind the theory.
(Lindzen, R.S., M.-D. Chou, and A.Y. Hou (2001). "Does the Earth have
an adaptive infrared iris?". Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 82: 417-432. doi:
10.1175/1520-0477(2001)0820417TEHAA2.3.CO;2)
Other researchers have verified that the Iris effect is a positive
rather than negative feedback (Hartman, D.L., and M.L. Michelsen
(2002). "No evidence for iris". Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 83: 249-254. doi:
10.1175/1520-0477(2002)0830249:NEFI2.3.CO;2. and Lin, B., B.
Wielicki, L. Chambers, Y. Hu, and K.-M. Xu (2002). "The Iris
Hypothesis: A Negative or Positive Cloud Feedback?". J. Clim. 15 (1):
3-7. doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2002)0150003:TIHANO2.0.CO;2) This is
exactly how science is supposed to work. Unfortunately somewhere along
the way Lindzen loses it and starts writing letters ot the editor and
editorials (Climate of Fear WSJ Wednesday, April 12, 2006) chock full
of at best half-truths and at worst outright lies. Lindzen then began
to accept funding from the oil/gas industry. His document "Global
Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus" was
underwritten by OPEC. He is a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition
which solely funded by ExxonMobil. When he testified before Congress
he spoke on behalf of the Western Fuels Association and was paid $10k
for his testimony. He charges the oil/gas industry $2500/day. Lindzen
does not have a standing paper in any peer review journal that can
provide a mechanism as to why current global warming isn't something
to worry about.

In a Newsweek interview dated July 23, 2001 Lindzen expound on how
weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. Lindzen is a member
of and speaks for the Coalition for the Advancement of Sound Science
(TCASS)which is a front group for Philip Morris Cigarettes. Further he
was a founding member of the European version of TCASS again funded by
Philip Morris.

All of the above information is summarized from the first two hits on
Google. I won't waste any time repeating/summarizing the hits from the
other You didn't do any searching nor did you read any of material in
the websites. No ad-hominem attacks merely the documentation. You
might read "The Republican War on Science" by Chris Mooney

On Sep 5, 6:44*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 10:33:03 -0700 (PDT), oriel36

wrote:
By far the biggest *planetary temperature fluctuation expereinced is
between January and July...

What about July back to January?
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

All the hyperfuss with pollution hardly conceals that empiricists
can't even handle two planetary motions - daily rotation and orbital
motion separately.Do you wish me to explain how daily rotation and
'tilt' determines whether a planet experiences Equatorial or Polar
conditions leaving the orbital dynamic to cause hemispherical seasonal
variations.

Climate studies, as it stands, gives everyone an opinion,the
astronomical modification using the additional orbital component,
takes all those opinions away and leaves the topic for people who are
serious about climate and restore pollution studies back to facet of
climate instead of dictating it

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 02:19:52 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

That is simply a reflection on your lack of knowledge in the area of
climate research.

Well, that's simply an ad-hominem attack; again, you prefer this to
scientific evidence.

If you state something that is false, and get called on it, an assertion
that you lack knowledge is not an ad hominem attack.


It is an ad-hominem attack, by definition.

Cranks often use this technique to avoid discussing the actual issue.


You conflate two differernt concepts, being "well supported" and "widely
accepted". The examples you chose to compare AGW to are both of these
things, but whilst AGW is "widely accepted" - a point you continualy
make -
it is not "well supported", at least not be testable hypothesis and
comparison to experimental data.

In fact, it is well supported,

"well supported" by experimental verification?

No its not.

At least nobody has posted any, and I can't find any on the the net, and
despite you telling me there is plenty of experimental verification you
don't post it.

A true crank would post a YouTube video as proof; haven't you got one of
these at least?


which is precisely why it is widely
accepted. In fact, I can't think of any area of science that is widely
accepted without being well supported.


Well, my claim is that not very much will happen.

The claim of some of the climate scientists is that the oceans "could"
rise
20m killing hundreds of millions, malaria will become prevalent in
Scotland,
and thousands of species may become extinct prematurely.

Now, who, exactly is making the extraordinary claims here? My claim of
very
little or nothing or the AGW claim of mass devastation?

You, because the evidence argues that significant change will happen
(and indeed, rather obviously already is).


Again, a reference to the existence of evidence, but again you don't post
it.


I also note that you seem to
be treating the more extreme scenarios as if they were typical. In fact,
the majority of climate scientists consider sea level rises over the
next century on the order of a meter or less to be more likely (which
still constitutes a disaster of huge scale).

I would say that a sea level rise of a metre in a century was an
extraordinary event. Its certainly never been seen in recorded history.

So, returning to the substantive point, who exactly is making the
extraordinary claims? The people predicting unprecedented rises in sea
levels and all the other **** I here, or the people saying nothing
extraordinary will happen?


Most of the models suggest
that in the worse case scenarios, temperatures in Scotland will be
colder than they are now,


So therefore some of the models predict warming?

So, does climate science predict that Scotland will get warmer or colder?

Has Scotland in fact gotten warmer or colder? Have the models which
predicted the wrong direction in fact been discreditted as not matching
experiment?


so I doubt that malaria in the British Isles
is a scenario that many scientists consider likely (even if it is
possible). And we are currently in the midst of a mass extinction event
on the same scale as the larger events of the past, and few who study
such things doubt that climate change is a significant component of
this. So the likelihood that continued rapid climate change will lead to
further extinctions is hardly an extraordinary claim.


Of course it is extraordinary. Mass extinctions due to AGW could not
possible be described as "ordinary", far from that, AFAIK it is claimed
these are completely unprecedented.

But I am glad that you have finally produced a testable prediction of
climate science. testable predictions are key to science.

What is the consensus view of climate scientists of the current rate of
species extinction, and the rate which would occur if CO2 continues to be
emitted at the same or increased rate?

How does the measured rate of species extinction in the 20th Century agree
with these models?



How dramatic or otherwise the predictions of a claim are has nothing at
all to do with how extraordinary the claim is. If I starve a lion for a
few days and then throw you in the cage with it, do you think that "it
will do nothing" is a less extraordinary claim than "it will rip your
belly open and scatter your guts as the flesh is torn from your bones"?


Sure, if you have seen hungry lions before. I have seen lots of videos of
lions eating animals because they are hungry.

I haven't seen any similar evidence for climate science. That hungry lions
eat animals is not extraordinary, its quite ordinary, happens every day,
tons of evidence.

Now your evidence for AGW is ....



Alas, I keep asking for the climate model which has been shown to be
correct
(there cannot be more than one, surely, as they all disagree), what
predictions it made, and how it is has compared to reality since it was
published.

Alas, I keep asking for one that has been shown to be incorrect.

Well, there are hundreds of models, as I understand it they all produce
different answers, so at best all except one are correct.

The models used by some climate scientists in the 1970s which predicted
global cooling were obviously wrong.

Which model do climate scientists agree is the most correct one? Lets
analyse that instead.

If you could just provide a link to where the predictions of this model are
compared to actual experimental data then we could do that thing so common
in other fileds of science, comparing the predictions of the theory to
experimental data.

indeed, different models can all produce different results and it
doesn't mean they are wrong, it only shows that they do not yet fully
represent reality.


ROFL, the scientific theories are not "wrong", its just that they don't
fully represent reality !

What is the difference between a scientific theory being "wrong" and "not
representing reality" ? I thought the acid test of a scientific theory was
in fact whether it represents reality.


That doesn't mean they don't present valid results,
or that their results should be ignored. All the models in current use
do a good job of predicting the last century or more, all show a
temperature rise that is consistent with past observations, all show a
continued rise over the next century.

Which ones ever predict cooling?

The model which has consensus support as most likely correct - what does it
predict for the temperature trend from 1830 to 1850 when fed 1830 data? Does
it show cooling or warming?



The fact that they show different
rises in the future just demonstrates the need for more research into
the underlying physics. Indeed, just in the last 10 years, with the
hugely increased amount of climate research conducted, knowledge has
expanded vastly- and it continues to do so.

I have heard astrologists talking the same way.

Climate scientists love pointing out that they need more money for research.




I want to be able to pump 1829 climate data into the model and have it
predict continued cooling until 1849. That is looking only 20 years ahead,
something that the models claim to be able to do today.

You assume that good quality 1829 climate data exists. Certainly, we
have very little idea what the solar output was, or what sort of
atmospheric aerosols were present. That's one reason that short range
models (which is what 100-year climate models are) start falling apart
when you go too far back. The best models take many inputs, and lots of
those inputs have to be left blank if you go back 150 years, some if you
go back 100 years, and some even if you go back just 50 years.
_________________________________________________


Ohh, so you saying that the models are not even testable for periods when
temperatures are decreasing?

If a theory is not testable, its not science.

Does your preferred model predict cooling under any circumstances? Are there
sets of boundary conditions which could plausibly have existed in (say) 1830
that result in the model predicting cooling over 1830 to 1850?

"yourmommycalled" wrote in message
...
On Sep 4, 6:53 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"yourmommycalled" wrote in message

...
On Sep 4, 4:41 am, "Peter Webb"

I googled Dennis Avery, Richard Lindzen, and Tim Ball. All have
them
have Wikipedia pages. None of the wikipedia pages mentions they
have
worked for tobacco companies.

No you didn't google any of those people.

***********************
Obviously I did, if I found their Wikipedia pages.

If you are going to lie at
least try and do a decent job of it. A google search with lindzen and
tobacco has it's FIRST HITwww.tobaccodocuments.org, which the
repository of documents that were released as part of the tobacco
settlement. Dennis Avery is listed in the tobacco legacy project.

***********************
When I googled, I couldn't actually find what Lindzen was supposed to have
done exactly for the tobacco industry. I did find a whole lot about how he
is a full Professor of Metereology at MIT, did research at Harvard, at is
an
AGW skeptic.

Your entire argument is an ad-hominem attack on AGW skeptics, including
myself. This is a typical strategy of cranks and conspiracy kooks - first
change the subject, then make ad-hominem attacks on the people who hold
contrary ideas, rather than the ideas themselves.



Before continuing please look up the definition of ad-hominem so that
you can use the phrase correctly next time. Indeed Lindzen is a
Professor at MIT and when he writes/published/speaks about the
kinematic and dynamic structure of long-waves in the atmosphere people
listen. When he proposed his "Iris theory" he received funding to test
the hypothesis. Unfortunately Lindzen's own results documented that
Iris effect was a positive feedback mechanism rather than a negative
feedback as Lindzen proposed. The reason Lindzen receive funding to do
the research was because there was testable science behind the theory.
(Lindzen, R.S., M.-D. Chou, and A.Y. Hou (2001). "Does the Earth have
an adaptive infrared iris?". Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 82: 417-432. doi:
10.1175/1520-0477(2001)0820417TEHAA2.3.CO;2)
Other researchers have verified that the Iris effect is a positive
rather than negative feedback (Hartman, D.L., and M.L. Michelsen
(2002). "No evidence for iris". Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 83: 249-254. doi:
10.1175/1520-0477(2002)0830249:NEFI2.3.CO;2. and Lin, B., B.
Wielicki, L. Chambers, Y. Hu, and K.-M. Xu (2002). "The Iris
Hypothesis: A Negative or Positive Cloud Feedback?". J. Clim. 15 (1):
3-7. doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2002)0150003:TIHANO2.0.CO;2) This is
exactly how science is supposed to work. Unfortunately somewhere along
the way Lindzen loses it and starts writing letters ot the editor and
editorials (Climate of Fear WSJ Wednesday, April 12, 2006) chock full
of at best half-truths and at worst outright lies. Lindzen then began
to accept funding from the oil/gas industry. His document "Global
Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus" was
underwritten by OPEC. He is a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition
which solely funded by ExxonMobil. When he testified before Congress
he spoke on behalf of the Western Fuels Association and was paid $10k
for his testimony. He charges the oil/gas industry $2500/day. Lindzen
does not have a standing paper in any peer review journal that can
provide a mechanism as to why current global warming isn't something
to worry about.

In a Newsweek interview dated July 23, 2001 Lindzen expound on how
weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. Lindzen is a member
of and speaks for the Coalition for the Advancement of Sound Science
(TCASS)which is a front group for Philip Morris Cigarettes. Further he
was a founding member of the European version of TCASS again funded by
Philip Morris.

All of the above information is summarized from the first two hits on
Google. I won't waste any time repeating/summarizing the hits from the
other You didn't do any searching nor did you read any of material in
the websites. No ad-hominem attacks merely the documentation. You
might read "The Republican War on Science" by Chris Mooney


***********************
OK, your "proof" that AGW is correct is that somebody who is an AGW skeptic
"expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking."

Personally, I can't see a scientific connection, but I will humour you.

If you best evidence of the truth of AGW is a quote concerning tobacco
smoking, could we at least see the supposed quote? If this is you knock-out
argument for the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global temperatures,
actually seeing the quote might help.

BTW, what is the causal mechanism between passive smoking and increases in
global temperatures?

On Sep 5, 8:26*pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"yourmommycalled" wrote in message

...
On Sep 4, 6:53 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:





"yourmommycalled" wrote in message

...
On Sep 4, 4:41 am, "Peter Webb"

I googled Dennis Avery, Richard Lindzen, and Tim Ball. All have
them
have Wikipedia pages. None of the wikipedia pages mentions they
have
worked for tobacco companies.

No you didn't google any of those people.

***********************
Obviously I did, if I found their Wikipedia pages.

If you are going to lie at
least try and do a decent job of it. A google search with lindzen and
tobacco has it's FIRST HITwww.tobaccodocuments.org, which the
repository of documents that were released as part of the tobacco
settlement. Dennis Avery is listed in the tobacco legacy project.

***********************
When I googled, I couldn't actually find what Lindzen was supposed to have
done exactly for the tobacco industry. I did find a whole lot about how he
is a full Professor of Metereology at MIT, did research at Harvard, at is
an
AGW skeptic.

Your entire argument is an ad-hominem attack on AGW skeptics, including
myself. This is a typical strategy of cranks and conspiracy kooks - first
change the subject, then make ad-hominem attacks on the people who hold
contrary ideas, rather than the ideas themselves.

Before continuing please look up the definition of ad-hominem *so that
you can use the phrase correctly next time. Indeed Lindzen is a
Professor at MIT and when he writes/published/speaks about the
kinematic and dynamic structure of long-waves in the atmosphere people
listen. When he proposed his "Iris theory" he received funding to test
the hypothesis. Unfortunately Lindzen's own results documented that
Iris effect was a positive feedback mechanism rather than a negative
feedback as Lindzen proposed. The reason Lindzen receive funding to do
the research was because there was testable science behind the theory.
(Lindzen, R.S., M.-D. Chou, and A.Y. Hou (2001). "Does the Earth have
an adaptive infrared iris?". Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 82: 417-432. doi:
10.1175/1520-0477(2001)0820417TEHAA2.3.CO;2)
Other researchers have verified *that the Iris effect is a positive
rather than negative feedback (Hartman, D.L., and M.L. Michelsen
(2002). "No evidence for iris". Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 83: 249-254. doi:
10.1175/1520-0477(2002)0830249:NEFI2.3.CO;2. *and Lin, B., B.
Wielicki, L. Chambers, Y. Hu, and K.-M. Xu (2002). "The Iris
Hypothesis: A Negative or Positive Cloud Feedback?". J. Clim. 15 (1):
3-7. doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2002)0150003:TIHANO2.0.CO;2) This is
exactly how science is supposed to work. Unfortunately somewhere along
the way Lindzen loses it and starts writing letters ot the editor and
editorials (Climate of Fear WSJ Wednesday, April 12, 2006) chock full
of at best half-truths and at worst outright lies. Lindzen then began
to accept funding from the oil/gas industry. His document "Global
Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus" was
underwritten by OPEC. He is a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition
which solely funded by ExxonMobil. When he testified before Congress
he spoke on behalf of the Western Fuels Association and was paid $10k
for his testimony. He charges the oil/gas industry $2500/day. Lindzen
does not have a standing paper in any peer review journal that can
provide a mechanism as to why current global warming isn't something
to worry about.

In a Newsweek interview dated July 23, 2001 Lindzen expound on how
weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. Lindzen is a member
of and speaks for the Coalition for the Advancement of Sound Science
(TCASS)which is a front group for Philip Morris Cigarettes. Further he
was a founding member of the European version of TCASS again funded by
Philip Morris.

All of the above information is summarized *from the first two hits on
Google. I won't waste any time repeating/summarizing the hits from the
other You didn't do any searching nor did you read any of material in
the websites. No ad-hominem attacks merely the documentation. You
might read "The Republican War on Science" by Chris Mooney

***********************
OK, your "proof" that AGW is correct is that somebody who is an AGW skeptic
"expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking."

Personally, I can't see a scientific connection, but I will humour you.

If you best evidence of the truth of AGW is a quote concerning tobacco
smoking, could we at least see the supposed quote? If this is you knock-out
argument for the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global temperatures,
actually seeing the quote might help.

BTW, what is the causal mechanism between passive smoking and increases in
global temperatures?

Quoting you from Sept 4 at 6:53 pm "When I googled, I couldn't
actually find what Lindzen was supposed to have done exactly for the
tobacco industry"

On Sept 4 at 6:53 pm you said "Your entire argument is an ad-hominem
attack on AGW skeptics, including myself. This is a typical strategy
of cranks and conspiracy kooks - first change the subject, then make
ad-hominem attacks on the people who hold contrary ideas, rather than
the ideas themselves."

Now either your are a liar or cann't read. I provided supporting
documentation to my claims that that several key AGW skeptics were
also involved in spreading uncertainty in the tobacco/lung cancer
debate. Because these skeptics were willing to say anything for money
when it came to tobacco lung cancer science they cannot be trusted
when the speak about AGW particularly when their testimony before a
Congressional committee is bought and paid for. He was willing to lie
twice for money why shouldn't they lie again. Oh I'm sorry lying and
getting caught in outright lies does bother you. It not an ad-hominem
attack when you catch someone lying

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 11:21:29 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

So, returning to the substantive point, who exactly is making the
extraordinary claims?

That would be you.

It is clear from your refusal to listen to reasoned argument, from your
repeats of questions that have been answered, from your lack of
knowledge of the published research, and from your misdirections of the
discussion that there is little point in continuing this. I don't know
if you are ignorant of the subject matter, don't understand how science
works, or simply prefer to ignore the science because you don't like the
policy implications. Wherever you're coming from here, however, it
doesn't belong in a science forum.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Sep 5, 7:21*pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

I would say that a sea level rise of a metre in a century was an
extraordinary event. Its certainly never been seen in recorded history.

So, returning to the substantive point, who exactly is making the
extraordinary claims? The people predicting unprecedented rises in sea
levels and all the other **** I here, or the people saying nothing
extraordinary will happen?

There is experimental evidence concerning the infrared transmissivity
of carbon dioxide.

The Earth receives so much heat from the Sun every second. Every
second, those parts of the Earth where it is night radiate heat out
into space - in the form of long-wave infrared radiation, since the
Earth is much cooler than the Sun.

If some of that radiation warms the atmosphere, instead of radiating
out, because there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, then the
Earth's equilibrium temperature will increase. This is a fact that
doesn't need to be proved again.

And the fact that ice melts at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, or 0 degrees
Celsius, doesn't need to be proved again either.

We have an *unprecedented* level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Suggesting that nothing extraordinary will happen is not unlike
suggesting that one can go out in the rain without getting wet.

John Savard

On Sep 5, 7:26*pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

OK, your "proof" that AGW is correct is that somebody who is an AGW skeptic
"expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking."

Personally, I can't see a scientific connection, but I will humour you.

If nobody believed that AGW was real, then governments would stop
trying to reduce carbon emissions.

Therefore, people would use more oil. The oil companies would make
more money.

Some of the same people who were hired by tobacco companies to produce
"scientific" evidence that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer... are
now being paid by oil companies to tell us that AGW is not real.

This doesn't tell us, by itself, that AGW _is_ real. But it does tell
us - for obvious reasons that I think you should be able to see - that
at least those people are not to be trusted, and so what they say
should be discounted.

On the other hand, nearly everyone does normally trust and accept what
the world's most prominent and recognized scientists agree on. Science
is a reliable source of information, and the scientific community has
a very good record.

Sure, there may be a few people out there who think differently. They
may think that a lot of scientists (at least these days) have let
themselves be manipulated through their egos, or have fallen in with
what is currently fashionable... and so they've adopted a socialist
agenda.

And as evidence that scientists aren't always right, such people might
even point to the near-universal acceptance, among the scientific
community, of (shock, horror) Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by
natural selection. Thus showing that they reject the most utterly
reliable source of truth known to man - God's Word! How can they not
realize that it is fallacious to claim, of the Earth, "that He who
made it, and revealed Its date to Moses, was mistaken in its age!".

Hopefully, though, you aren't one of _those_ people. If you are,
there's really no point in even trying to reason with you.

John Savard

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 11:21:29 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

So, returning to the substantive point, who exactly is making the
extraordinary claims?

That would be you.

It is clear from your refusal to listen to reasoned argument, from your
repeats of questions that have been answered, from your lack of
knowledge of the published research, and from your misdirections of the
discussion that there is little point in continuing this. I don't know
if you are ignorant of the subject matter, don't understand how science
works, or simply prefer to ignore the science because you don't like the
policy implications. Wherever you're coming from here, however, it
doesn't belong in a science forum.
_________________________________________________

Gee, I thought science progressed by testing the agreement between theory
and experiment.

You seem to think it works by analysing the use of advertising agencies.

You have given me plenty of examples of how you think that the wrong
advertising companies are involved. But no examples of where climate science
predictions have been successfully compared to experimental results.

Maybe you are right. If you cannot or will not discuss the scientific
evidence, maybe we should move this to alt.conspiracy-kooks. They love all
this stuff about how somebody's advertising agency has somebody else as a
client and this somehow proves something scientific. You haven't got a
YouTube video of Lindzen taking about cigarette smoking, have you? That
would prove that AGW is correct, you could post that as well.

We have an *unprecedented* level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

**********************
Really?

Is that what AGW says? Does the AGW theory state that present CO2 levels are
unprecedented - ie have never occurred before - is this a standard part of
AGW science?

Because there is plenty of evidence that CO2 levels are almost the lowest
they have been in the last 600 million years, reaching up to 7,000 ppm at
some stages. Atmospheric CO2 levels seem to have been in pretty serious
decline for about 120 million years.

You know how "old school" I am that a scientific theory should be evaluated
according to the adherence between theory and experiment. Its certainly been
experimentally determined that present CO2 levels are from from
unprecedented (or, rather more accurately, they are unprecedented in how low
they are). If what you say is true, this is another example of AGW
predictions failing to meet experimental results.

Got any other predictions of climate science that we can test against
experiment?