Right, but that’s not where CO2 causes warming. CO2 is only an insulator at high altitudes (where heat is lost to space).

Global warming theory cannot be reconciled with this data.

That statement is simply NOT TRUE. And attempting to refute empirical evidence only shows just how NOT TRUE it really is.

It seems to me from the surface, here, that whether or not water vapor would be forcing or feedback in reducing warming is a simple matter. Thinking that this giant complex planet would not have simple feedback mechanisms that would tend to cause things to be stable over long periods of time is foolish. The opposite seems merely to bean obvious expectation. Furthermore, the idea that us puny humans could be more forceful in defining the atmosphere than the giant planet itself is the height of arrogance, and that’s being generous.

You are using a casual, informal use of the word “conspiracy” which has very loose interpretations and can just mean “a lot of people doing the same thing.”

Dean is using a very precise, formal use of the word “conspiracy” which has very strict interpretations of illegal activity coordinated by a central authority and intended to provide a specific result.

Either or both, of course, could be an accurate statement of what the Global Warming Acolytes are doing, but it is not necessary for scientists to be following directions and joining some nefarious cabal for them to be falsifying data, burying findings or intimidating those who don’t toe the line. All that requires is their belief that it is in their own self interest to do so.

I personally think there’s a lot of the first (informal conspiracy) and a little of the second (specific conspiracy) going on. There’s a widespread general tendency in the scientific community to “follow the money” and right now the money is coming from Global Warming Believers. There is also a powerful desire to be seen as “doing the right thing” when the “right thing” is defined as pursuing anti-Global Warming goals. But I am sure there is indeed a group of nefarious anti-American and anti-Corporate conspirators involved in the whole scheme who could not care less about the science, all they want to do is weaken the U.S. and capitalism as much as they possibly can.

Whether people like Al Gore are part of the widespread “do the right thing” crowd, or whether they are part of the more sinister hidden conspiracy is anyone’s guess. But sometimes you can follow the money and draw your own conclusions.

a conspiracy requires that individuals human beings intentionally perpetrate something fraudulent or criminal, for selfish or ideological motives.

maybe you are the only one in this thread who disbelieves in global warming, who doesn’t feel this way. but i think that accusing scientists of suppressing data, burying findings couner to “dogma”, and engaging in intimidation of those who dont toe the line (as Lindzen repetedly insists he has been) amounts to the same thing. especially if the motivation is, as you keep asserting, related to their need to jusgtify their salaries.

at any rate, i am te only one adderessing teh science in this thread. and i dont see any response.

Your assertion is incorrect. Mine is correct. There are plenty of agnostics (like myself) and even religious folks (like Catholics) who accept evolution as the process for species differentiation.

Again you can SAY what you like, you can even BELIEVE what you like, but that doesn’t make it so.

“The bare fact that virtually ALL believers in “Scientific Creationism” are fundamentalist evangelical Christians is hard evidence that it isn’t science at all.”

Two can play this game:

The bare fact that virtually ALL believers in “scientific evolution” are ardent atheists is hard evidence that it isn’t science at all.

If you get to use worldview to negate scientific view, so can I.

Listen man, a conspiracy requires that individuals human beings intentionally perpetrate something fraudulent or criminal, for selfish or ideological motives. Conspiracies do exist, but they are rare, they are punishable by law, and they almost never involve more than a tiny handful of people. They can’t; to perpetrate an intentional fraud (you know, to perpetrate a CONSPIRACY), you need everyone involved to trust each other and stay consistently on the same page.

With every person you add to the conspiracy, you probably double the chances of getting caught. The idea that you can have a serious conspiracy that involves hundreds or thousands of people is mathematically nearly impossible. Especially if it’s on an issue that drags on for years or decades.

Listen, we recently had a lot of bankers writing a lot of bad loans. Amongst the many causes of this was bad policies which not only encouraged making bad loans, but also DISCOURAGED the people giving out the loans from worrying about default. And so you had all these people–tens of thousands of them at least–in the finance industry who made good money if they sold mortgages, and faced almost no repercussions of those mortgages went into default.

That’s not a conspiracy Aziz. Those bankers did not engage in a conpsiracy. They were in a system that created a fundamental conflict of interest–a conflict of itnerest that has affected hundreds of millions, possibly billions of people worldwide. Based on bad policies that created a huge conflict of interest for much of the financial sector.

Conflict of interest is not a difficult concept to understand. To be honest, when it comes to this, AIDS, or any other scientific issue where conflict of interest and lack of transparency are an obvious problem, and I suddenly hear those on the other side making snide remarks about “conspiracies,” I almost invariably am inclined to dismiss anything else that person has to say on the matter, because they’ve already revealed that instead of facing the real issue they’ll just change the subject instead.

“Haha, they think we’re all engaged in a conspiracy, gang! Yeah, just like Area 51! Whooh, gotta hide those alien bodies right where we moved Elvis and JFK to our secret moonbase!”

No. The accusation was “your data and sources lack transparency and sufficiently rigorous external auditing from disinterested parties, and forthright acknowledgment of issues of conflict of interest.

Trackback from PunditKix.com…

A new paper about relative humidity in the upper atmosphere is making the rounds of global-warming skeptic blogs. I’m not a climate scientist,  but my own scientific training does give me the tools to at least read a paper’s abstract……

The paper makes the following claims (see the abstract reprinted at Climate Audit):

- relative humidity has been thought to be increasing with global temperature (ie, positive feedback)
- in the upper atmosphere, according to balloon data, the paper reports that relative humidity has actually been decreasing (ie, negative feedback, with the warming trend that the authors explicitly acknowledge exists)

the authors themselves do acknowledge in the abstract itself that balloon data must be “treated with great caution, particularly at altitudes above the 500 hPa pressure level”, though Anthony Watts does not mention this admission in his summary to which Dave linked. The abstract only reports a negative feedback trend above 850 hPa for the tropics and southern midlatitudes, and above 600 hPa for the northern midlatitudes. The abstract goes on to explicitly state that the humidity trend is “significantly positive below 850 hPa in all three zones” – which is where the vast bulk of the water vapor in the atmosphere resides.

the main conclusion of the paper is not as bold as Dave implies – they merely state that the data suggests that there might need to be a review of data collection protocols using balloons, since the data is so iffy indeed and at odds with satellite measurements (which contrary to Watts’ assertion, are probably more accurate for annual average measurements than spot measurements by balloon. see notes below for an analogy as to why). Here’s the first paragraph of the conclusion proper from the article full text (courtesy of Watts):

It is of course possible that the observed humidity trends from the NCEP data are simply the result of problems with the instrumentation and operation of the global radiosonde network from which the data are derived. The potential for such problems needs to be examined in detail in an effort rather similar to the effort now devoted to abstracting real surface temperature trends from the face-value data from individual stations of the international meteorological networks. As recommended by Elliot and Gaffen (1991) in their original study of the US radiosonde network, there needs to be a detailed examination of how radiosonde instrumentation, operating procedures, and recording practices of all nations have changed over the years and of how these changes may have impacted on the humidity data.

emphasis mine. The conclusion goes on to state that “trends of water vapor shown by the NCEP data for the middle and upper troposphere should not be “written off” simply on the basis that they are not supported by climate models”. I agree, but they should heed their own advice when they state a few sentences later, “it is important that as much information as possible be retrieved from within the “noise” of the potential errors.” If the balloon data is inherently noisy (partly due to collection protocols that the authors themselves acknowledge must be refined and reviewed) then making claims about the trends of relative humidity from that data alone is essentially treating noise as data. In light of the problems with the balloon data – again, explicitly acknowledged by the authors in their own abstract and conclusion – it’s perfectly reasonable that review papers continue to assert that there is a scientific consensus that water vapor provides a positive feedback.

The authors have made a good case for a review of balloon data collection protocols, but have made no claims on whether the data we have from balloons so far is of any value. The “central pillar” (not really) of GW theory has certainly not been “collapsed” by this paper in any sense.

Incidentally there is a lot more information about humidity and water vapor effects available from other science bloggers (yes, part of that pro-GW conspiracy to pad their paychecks, admittedly). See:

• Water vapour: feedback or forcing? at Real Climate
• Evaporating the water vapor argument at Skeptical Science
• Anti-global heating claims: Myth #18 at Scholars and Rogues

As far as the meta arguments about science go, note that the paper in question was accepted but according to Watts is being “ignored”. As far as i am aware, publication is the exact opposite of being “ignored”. One of the authors of the paper in question points to a single vitriolic and political comment by a reviewer as evidence that the paper’s refusal at a more prestigious journal is evidence of a deeper agenda at work; the poor thing may not be aware that reviewers are also human, that sometimes prestigious journals refuse perfectly valid papers for trivial reasons. Since they haven’t released the full text of the reviewers’ comments, we are not able to discern whether there were perhaps more substantive reasons for the refusal of the paper at the big journal. I am heartened by the author’s claims, however – clearly the recent refusal of one of my own papers on MRI neuroimaging in Multiple Sclerosis to the prestigious journal Brain is also evidence of a secret agenda against my research. And we were refused by the smaller journals, too, unlike this humidity paper in question. Perhaps I too can get on a lecture circuit?

At any rate the simple fact of the paper being accepted (granted, by a “lesser” journal than the author’s ego would prefer) puts the truth to the lie that anti-GW skeptics are being shut out by the all-powerful, money-grubbing GW consensus conspiracy.

finally, one note regarding satellite vs balloon measurements for long term averaged regional data. Balloons provide a single spot measure whereas satellites can integrate over a far larger area. The former are very vulnerable to local variation and noise whereas the latter can average these out by simple virtue of broader field. It’s like trying to assess whether a patient has fatty infiltrating liver disease by taking a liver biopsy: you take a tissue sample over here, but what if the diseased tissue is over there? if you image the whole liver at once (analogous to satellites), then you get the broad picture and can make a global (liver) assessment more accurately and safe from measurement variation.

(I’m cross-posting this comment at Nation-Building later as a post in its own right since it took me an hour to write and research)