adding heat to something changes its temperature, unless something else takes the heat away
Absolutely true, and beyond dispute. And a thoughtful and informative post, too.
The "hide the decline" comment that is so widely quoted actually referred to a major unexplained divergence between the hockey stick model and the real data. When the model does not match the real data, the model loses, every time, all the time. That is also beyond dispute.
The net of all this is that I'm being asked to believe a predictive model that doesn't match the data, that has to distort known historical events to reach its results, and is thus unverifiable and immeasurable and contrary to known facts. And I can't find any evidence in the time series model that helps their argument.
So is there man-global warming? Is it a bad thing? Is it of sufficient magnitude to concern us? I don't know. All I can say is that from what little I can see, the evidence doesn't meet my five-point test and I hold the result as inadequately supported.
OTH, should we be moving away from fossil fuels? You bet! We ought to be building nuclear plants like mad and working hammer and tongs on fusion reactors. It is an observed and measurable fact that that will improve the quality of the air that we breathe and of the water in our rivers, lakes and seas. That is reason enough.
I'm very encouraged by the price trends on photo-voltaics. If those trends continue, in a surprisingly short time they will be quite cost effective. I think it would be great to see homes roofed with the stuff, and everybody's home system phase synched with the world.
BTW, I am old enough to remember what seemed like pretty much the same bunch of people that are now on the AGW bandwagon being staunchly opposed to nice, clean, efficient nuclear reactors, and getting them stopped in this country for decades. But maybe that's just my perception.
