re: #124 Charles

Being WAY out of my field, I can’t comment specifically on studies in atmospheric science other than to say that “the” experiment to determine the effect of CO2 on global climate effectively CANNOT be done. (IE we don’t have an extra “control” earth lying around, nor any completely validated climate model to go by).

Modelling climate is unbelievably complex, and as one tiny example, there is good reason to believe that much of the data ostensibly measuring the surface temperature of the earth aren’t “right”. If we can’t even accurately measure the temperature of the earth, then how can we draw any meaningful conclusions about the effect of mankind on climate?

What I can say, is that I’ve been around the lab enough to have seen *plenty* of bad science of all kinds, from poorly planned and executed experiments, to clueless peer review, to non-reproduceable results, to results shaded for reasons of “political correctness”, to outright scientific fraud.

Its enough to have given me a healthy (or perhaps cynical) skepticism of published results. Usually the truth comes out eventually, but not always, and sometimes it can take decades.

So when it comes to AGW, I’m largely agnostic…though my tendency is to dismiss the “Chicken littles” like Al Gore or anyone else who likens skepticism of AGW to Holocaust denial.