It’s not that the issues aren’t important – they are. But editorially I’d rather approach it through smaller issues such as cloud feedback or something like that.

Also see Emanuel in MIT debate linked from here.

This sentence made me laugh out loud. It is the article of faith and abandonment of the scientific method.

“…Actual observations of the planet…” There is no reliable observation of planetary temperature over any time span sufficient to determine a temperature trend to a degree of statistical certainty. PERIOD.

Inferring global warming on the existing information is NOT SCIENCE regardless how much such as the good doctor wish it were so.

In law…if you have the facts, pound the facts. If you have the law, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table.

There is much too much table pounding and too little raw data publication.

That, I suppose, is what American “pragmatism” (not Peirce’s, by the way) has done to science: who cares about reality (truth) when all we need is a model that allows us to manufacture something that “works” (i.e., serves someone’s purposes). A high-tech device? No problem! A major public scare? No problem! Have model, will travel.

And yes, Kerry Emanuel is right: “We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which will never come [since we stopped looking for it], nor does it do anyone any good to assassinate science, the messenger [since he's already been beaten to within an inch of his life].”

But, after all is said and done: 1) ex falso (even if it is a model) sequitur quodlibet; 2) from truth only truth follows. That used to be the logic of science, when it was still the search for truth. It isn’t the logic of the model builders.

Actually, I’ve wondered in the past if there was something outright duplicitous about Emanuel’s 2005 Nature paper.

In any event, I’ll wait for a more credible voice.

Human CO2 emissions have been increasing exponentially, every since James Watt invested the steam engine.

Global temperature (per NCDC) has been increasing linearly for over 300 years and has been measured, more or less accurately, since 1880.

This linear trend has been overlaid by a 65 year zig zag, plus minor short term fluctiations (caused by El Ninos, volcanos etc).

Professor Phil Jones now agrees, there’s nothing un-natural about the 20th century warming.

I would add that very little effort has been put into determining how much CO2 the oceans would really release when warmed up. A history of ocean temperatures is still not clearly established and the rates of turnover of water with depth is still poorly understood.

Emmanuel actually believes that climate scientists can “objectively predict climate” with models and super-computers. I find it difficult to take anybody seriously who believes in such fashionable nonsense. Note to Dr. Kerry, models are opinion and speculation.