Positive Feedbacks

What if I were to tell you that the entire case for man caused global warming(AGW) were to rest on two papers written by two scientists, and they provide no proof for their conclusions. Not thousands of scientists concurring on the facts, but a couple of scientists, whose work is done at the auspices of the UN. That fact is now becoming widely known. This fools game, relying on theory for both your hypothesis and the evidence you need to support it, is not science it's a hoax offered for lay people to consume.

From Monckton's paper ...

"It is of no little significance that the IPCC’s value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankind’s effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted."

Another eye-opener is his explanation of how the believers' climate models are verified:

"Since we cannot measure any individual forcing directly in the atmosphere, the models draw upon results of laboratory experiments in passing sunlight through chambers in which atmospheric constituents are artificially varied," writes Monckton. "Such experiments are, however, of limited value when translated into the real atmosphere, where radiative transfers and non-radiative transports (convection and evaporation up, advection along, subsidence and precipitation down), as well as altitudinal and latitudinal asymmetries, greatly complicate the picture."

In other words, an unproven hypothesis is fed into a computer, nothing wrong with that, but it can only be verified against experiments that have no resemblance to the chaotic real world system of Earth's climate. It is not hard to see how the scientists could produce an immaculate "model" that's theoretically perfect in every respect, all the equations balance, and it may even be programmed to offer perfect "hind-casting", but which has no practical predictive value at all. It's safe from the rude intrusion of empirical evidence drawn from atmospheric observation.

The proof comes when predictive results are compared to the empirical data, and sadly they do not match 'at all'. Engineers call it GIGO.