New Global Warming Research

Say, from the midpoint of each peak and valley. If you draw a line that connects the middle of each rise and decline, it slopes down overall. Surely it's not impossible for you to imagine a cyclic phenomenon on top of a general trend of decline. Say, hourly temperature readings between July and December. As an illustration of a general trend. Where's the deceit? Right, right, we know all about how your multiple PhD's in climatology or whatever lead you to conclude that "An Inconvenient Truth" - a movie that it's uncertain you've ever actually seen, as I recall - is 100% fake, despite being verified in its accuracy by a number of leading climate scientists. Lol! I can't imagine why. Surely you can conceive of shorter-term cyclic behavior operating on top of longer term trends, right? Like the winter example I just mentioned. Holmes, there's no doubt in my mind that if I had asserted that there was no overall trend, you'd now be asserting that you could plainly see a slope to the data, and that I must be blind or deceitful for trying to assert otherwise.You have a problem, and it's that you must relentlessly contradict whatever I say. There's absolutely nothing I can assert, apparently, that you won't immediately take issue with.If I thought for a second that you were approaching this with anything like objectivity your assertions would carry more weight. As it is it's obvious that you're just operating from the same relentless contrarianism you always post from. Man, you haven't changed at all, have you?

Well I don't see that. Not sure how when the final temp area is higher than the initial temp. I do understand that, and I'm telling you I don't see that. Further, if you understand that, then how were you criticizing the scientists, whose time frame ran well before your graph? Because the general trend is not obvious, if it exists at all. According to your own words, you chose a less complete graph because the content appeared to support you claim better. That is deception. Certainly more deceptive than what the scientists you insulted were doing. I have coursework in climatology and never said otherwise. As it happens I have seen Gore's movie and it had the same content as in the slide show, which I already commented on. And actually, for your information climatologists have not "verified its accuracy". Unless you mean to say they checked it.It was interesting when a british court ruled on something like 9 errors contained in the movie. Gore's publicist put out a statement. It was a bunch of backing away from what he said in the movie, she even noted that he used "unfortunate language"... its a movie, if it was unfortunate why didn't he change the thing. But funniest to me was that she referenced a site by climatologists discussing global warming. Despite being supportive of Gore's intent, it was admitted that he didn't get things quite right. Indeed I think the NY Times ran an article which had scientists discussing that he wasn't quite right. But still he gets lauded for his "intent", and getting it close enough. In fact, on the subject which I tried to explain to you last go around, the author of the climate site said many of his climatologist friends were explicitly upset by Gore's error on that point.So, boo to you.As it stands I haven't mentioned my creds once in this thread. I don't need to because there is evidence out there to get. Which I did.By the way, do you have a pan which allows more heat to pass to the food than it receives, and then gets warmed by the cooking food? Well I will certainly contradict the above claim. If you notice in my opening post to you, I did not contradict everything you said. In fact I supported much of it. Only where you went beyond your knowledge, including intentions of the scientists in question, did I make any criticism.And I will repeat this again... You were right to question the claims made by the scientists. The mechanisms were not clear, including what specifically accounted for a lag. If all they have is a correlation then it is meaningless by itself. Also the journalist wrote a poor, hyperbolically titled piece, which was not supported by the content.The only issues were that your graph could not speak to their claims, you cannot speak for their intent, and you apparently do not fully understand the complexity of the atmosphere as it relates to energy input.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I should add something you also may note. On your graph I did NOT dispute that there was a downward trend. With the timeframe you gave, it was small but I could see it, and said so.Which is yet another indication that I don't simply contradict you. If Mod's graph had a downward trend, or one that was apparent I'd say so. In fact, why wouldn't I since I did agree on your first graph? As I pointed out that is somewhat irrelevant to the claims of the sunspot guys, and that would stand here just the same.You need to stop seeing me as contradicting everything you say, and note it is usually a mixed bag.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Naturally. Since I'm the one telling you I see it, obviously you do not. Oh, for God's sake. I don't need to listen to a lecture from you of all people. You're in no position to speak about being deceptive, unless I guess you're great experience in misrepresenting others and being dishonest makes you an expert on the subject.

I don't see a downward trend, and I don't think one should go looking for one in sample size of 2 and a half cycles. The 400 year hypothesis is something like and the hypothesis of the OP extends this back 8k years or something like that.The most recent graph I could find for insolation is this, which extends the data a few years: I'm not seeing a downward trend here, but even if there were one - that we are now in a slight downward trend doesn't address the historical hypothesis that we have recently had a significant upwards trend. I didn't mean to imply you were cherry picking data, but we have precious little direct observations - and any trend in any direction is tiny to the point of irrelevance. The important point is the correlation between sunspots and insolation - if it is always the case that they are correlated and if there is anyway to infer sunspot activity from what evidence we can get, we might have a way of getting at more long term data.

Yet you do not deal with the fact that I did agree your graph exhibited a downward trend. How do you deal with that very large piece of counter-evidence?At the time I noted that you were right in the area contained by the graph, the other scientists (who chose an even shorter version) were also right, and the scientists in question MIGHT be right on their time scale (which your graph did not include).Mod has twice now provided graphs which show exactly what I said. Yes you were right within the period you selected, you don't seem to be right outside of that. But note, I didn't call that deceitful in my initial posts but rather an artifact of choosing an arbitrary point from which to measure from. A point Mod is demonstrating graphically. Look at your behavior in this thread. While you start with several good points, you made some small errors. Part of that was attacking the integrity of scientists who did nothing wrong. When I questioned your small errors, you began personally attacking me.Within all of these attacks was a not too subtle implication that they, or I, must be some sort of dupes or agents for big oil industries. That we must be wrong because we do not fit within your paradigm of how the atmosphere functions... which itself was not accurate.You were the one labeling your opponents as deceptive. Perhaps if you stopped doing this, some will not point out how your own activity seems deceptive, especially in comparison.And I will repeat, when you choose a graph that you feel will best convince others (what you think you see more complete data doing), rather than a more complete graph showing the full range under discussion, then that is a form of deception. It isn't heavy handed, but it is slight of hand. If your point is valid then more complete and accurate data ought to help you, not hurt you.Edited by Silent H, : lil fixEdited by Silent H, : more fixins

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Counter-evidence of what? That there's a point even you won't cross? That there's a point where even you realize your regular contrarianism becomes ridiculous? I don't find that particularly significant. Oh, God. Always with the accusations of personal attacks, when it's only ever been your behavior that I've attacked. Must the misrepresentations continue? Is there no point at which you'll begin posting honestly? Again with the misrepresentations. I have never asserted that you or anybody else were shills for oil; nonetheless, it's abundantly obvious that there are shills for oil, and that they do bring misinformation to the debate. That's a known fact.I don't think you're a shill for big oil, and I've never implied it. I don't think you're motivated by money; I think you're motivated by a sick need to contradict me whenever possible. Not so. It's deception when the restricted graph shows a different trend than the specified bigger picture. I asserted a general declining trend over 2-3 recent decades; Mod's information confirms the trend I asserted, as far as I can see. I'm no expert in curve fitting but I see the decline. I have no explanation for why anybody else cannot (except for you, who I've already explained.)No deception. We can have an argument about what trends are justified, but there's no cause here to impugne my sincerity - and you have absolutely no standing to do so with your history around here. It has.Let me cover a misrepresentation you threw out yesterday: It's funny - I didn't even catch this until I was researching something else just now. You say "ruled on", and unless someone was paying attention and looking for the various ways you like to misrepresent your own information, they'd never notice that you don't actually say what the ruling was. It's not until they look it up that you realize:

quote:

---

Last week, a UK High Court judge rejected a call to restrict the showing of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) in British schools. The judge, Justice Burton found that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate" (which accords with our original assessment). There has been a lot of comment and controversy over this decision because of the judges commentary on 9 alleged "errors" (note the quotation marks!) in the movie's description of the science. The judge referred to these as 'errors' in quotations precisely to emphasize that, while these were points that could be contested, it was not clear that they were actually errors (see Deltoid for more on that).

---

RealClimate: Convenient UntruthsHuh. The ruling of the judge on the "nine errors" you refer to was that they weren't established to be errors at all, and that the movie was broadly accurate, completely consistent with the findings of the nation's climatologists.I'm just saying. You have absolutely no basis to assert deception on the part of any other person so long as you're spinning so many misrepresentations of your own. Consider cleaning up your own act before you speak about anybody else's.

You claimed I always contradict you, I was pointing out that not only didn't I, but had agreed on your interpretation of the data on your graph. Thus there'd be no reason for me to disagree with you just for "contrarianism's sake" for mod's. Yes, this is a good example. Read carefully... I didn't say just shills (which would be agents), I also said dupes, which means that we are falling for cons they have presented. You accused them of deceit. Remember why? You accused me of suggesting something, and how it could be used.These are all attacks on the person, rather than just dealing with the evidence. Do you remember where this started? The scientists made a claim, your graph was within a shorter period than they were discussing. Mod's larger graphs cover more time and conflict with yours. Thus if you had them both and selected a graph with a shorter time period, because it made your point more evident, that really is deception. Its a key tactic in propaganda. Given that more than just I have disputed your claim, and his last post includes markers to show you are wrong much more clearly, perhaps you are wrong about me. The point of my addressing the court case was not to say anything about the judge or his ruling. So yeah, he ruled on them. The point (which is why I discussed it in more detail) was Gore's publicist's reaction. And the fact is while one may engage in a semantic game of what an error gets defined as, they were not wholly accurate, and some were misleading (though as she states it was not intentional).Yes, his conclusions are broadly accurate, and consistent. That does not mean correct, and indeed some points are "contestable". He had a habit of picking out worse case scenarios, and making comments which appeared to link things which he shouldn't (much like Bush discussing Iraq and 9/11 in the same breath).I'm glad you linked to the real climate site. Did you find where he discusses his fellow climatologists being upset with one of Gore's inaccuracies?Just because a person gets a right conclusion, or one which is "broadly accurate and consistent", does not mean one has gotten there by proper means and accurate discussion. He is not championing good science, he is championing a cause.That is my problem with him.Edited by Silent H, : -strange gap

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I don't recall calling you a dupe, either - only warning you away from using the same trigger language climate change deniers use, if you wanted to distance yourself from that contingent. More misrepresentation. If you'll recall it was a request for clarification - not an accusation. The scientists - or the journalist, it's hard to tell- made a claim that didn't seem to be born out by trends in the data, and I chose a graph that I felt represented that trend.That's all there is to it. The relentless accusation of bad faith on my part isn't something you're able to support - because it's just not true. I'm afraid that I don't see that they do. I see graphs that have been entirely consistent with what I've been saying.And I'm not the only one. No less an authority than the Royal Society sees the same trend:

quote:

---

LONDON (Reuters) - The sun's changing energy levels are not to blame for recent global warming and, if anything, solar variations over the past 20 years should have had a cooling effect, scientists said on Wednesday.

​

There is little doubt that solar variability has influenced the Earth's climate in the past and may well have been a factor in the first half of the last century, but British and Swiss researchers said it could not explain recent warming.

​

"Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the sun that could have had an influence on Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures," they wrote in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

---

Reuters | Breaking International News & ViewsThe trend is there, Holmes, over the time period I specified. I can't imagine why you'd find that person's opinion to be of significance. Gore's publicist isn't a climatologist, correct?The fact is, you attempted to impugn Gore's credibility by implying the presence of errors where there are not known to be any. And now, of course, you're backpedalling, having been caught out in the lie. It's the same old dishonesty as always. Holmes, I've just proven that we can't for a minute trust your characterizations of anything. If you have a specific post in mind you better provide a link. And no, offhand, I don't have the entire RealClimate site memorized so no, I have no idea what you're talking about. And yet, the scientists seem to think that his science is sound, and that his conclusions may be alarming but they're supported by the evidence.But, of course, Holmes knows better. What the fuck else is new.

Mmmmhmmm... and yet you felt able to accuse the scientists of being deceitful. Whatever. Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha... no, wait a second... Ahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha... whoooo, boy. That was a good one.Did you read that article? Or perhaps I should ask, did you understand that article? They were not discussing trends in solar radiation, but rather the effects that would be due to solar radiation.They were trying out different mechanisms, and determining conclusions of models if radiation (including sunspot activity) were the prime mover of temperature. That is because the mechanisms of energy to temperature are NOT direct. It ain't a frying pan.If you figure out where the statement is of their methods, you'll not only see what I am talking about, but a brief statement telling you the same thing I did earlier in this thread.That was rich though. Oh wait... ahahahahahahahahaha... stop it will ya? I think you better look over that link of yours again, bub. I said you can engage in some semantic debate about how to define an error if you want, but there are problems, and some climatologists certainly call them errors... including at that site. The very ones who go on to say that overall his message was broadly accurate and consistent. You don't need the whole site, only the section you linked to, and some of the more detailed discussions that page links to. Tell me you didn't quote that without reading everything they had to say? First of all, that site contains a small amount of bias. They tend to be apologists, glossing over errors, as long as the message gets out.Which is not to say that THEY get the science wrong, only that they let non-climatologists have a bit of slack. It is an OPINION, on their part that it is more important to get the message out. I do not share their opinion, and I don't have to.I do not believe that scaring people, and misinformation about science, is okay as long as people get a certain message.Second, related directly from the first... they do NOT say his science is WHOLLY sound. It is described as adequate, and the errors not critical to the final conclusions he is making. And I would agree. A person can say a bunch of dumb shit, if part of it is good enough to make a conclusion then it is good enough.Remember, I am not having a hard time with temps going up due primarily to manmade activity. It is incorrectly representing science which bugs me, including alarmISM. That's different than just saying something that's alarmING. And it is using a political position to take shots at scientists who disagree, and from a vantage point of ignorance of science to boot, which bugs me extra. I can't imagine why you'd find that person's opinion to be of significance. Gore isn't a climatologist, correct?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

But that's exactly what they discussed:

quote:

---

Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the sun that could have had an influence on Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures

---

It's precisely the sun to which they were referring, Holmes. Apparently you're having your characteristic problems with statements in plain English."The trends in the Sun." What do you think that refers to, Holmes? Insolation, of course. The Sun's energy into the Earth's climate system. I did read everything they had to say, but because you misrepresent nearly everything you seem to read, I still have no idea what you're talking about.Why don't you quote the material that you're referring to? Is it because you know that you can't possibly get away with misrepresenting it if you do so? Uh-huh. How much bias, and how would you measure it? By what means do you claim to detect this bias? Wrong again, Holmes. I wonder if you even read the material.

quote:

---

But behind each of these issues lies some fascinating, and in some cases worrying, scientific findings and we can only applaud the prospect that more classroom discussions of these subjects may occur because of this court case.

---

Clear as day. Sound science lies at the foundation of each of Gore's controversial claims. Ah, right. The Chicken-Little "sky is falling" predictions that, for some reason, you can never actually manage to manifest a credible example of. I don't find Gore's opinion to be especially significant. The science he portrays in "An Inconvenient Truth", however, has been verified and proven factual, as I've shown. Your objections are specious and the evidence you've marshaled for them has been revealed to contradict your assertions.Surely you're done here. Now that your position has been demolished - leaving you with no recourse, apparently, except hollow, sarcastic laughter - you have no option but to slink off, as usual?

Let me start with an apology. I've been a more than a tad surly and uncivil. Not that I've been wrong in what I've been saying, but my manner was not helpful. I've been going through rather severe caffeine withdrawal symptoms over the last few days (man even today) and it does not bring out the best in my replies.Now let me say this as clearly as possible. You do not understand what you are talking about, or reading... You have taken the above statement out of context, particularly in conjunction with the explanation of methodology. As it is the article gives a brief nod that solar energy output has been increasing. Look at the above statement carefully. The trends that could have had an influence have been in the opposite direction REQUIRED to explain the observations of temps rising.Now only if they used your frying pan model, would that mean solar energy must be decreasing. But it is not a frying pan. There is a vast array of effects from solar radiation which alters how the atmosphere reacts to energy. For example an increase in cloud cover would result in cooling, though greater cloud cover may have been initiated by a period of greater solar energy input.This is the kind of thing they were discussing. And I might point out that this article wasn't much better written than the one in the OP. Thus I don't exactly blame you for the confusion, but you should note that they include a very brief mention of increased solar input, it was matching those to real world mechanisms that showed they were not helpful in producing the temp rise in the atmosphere. This article shoots down the study in the OP, but not for the reason you suggest.And furthermore, even if there were recent decreases, the point remains that this is cyclic, and we are at a relative increase from many decades ago. I measure it... personally speaking... by the amount of personal caveats someone throws on when making an apologist argument for errors. It is clearly seen within the site author's discussion of the movie.If you wish me to bring the quotes in from the site I will. But it will likely be embarrassing for a person claiming that there are no errors in the movie. Check again. That statement does not logically follow from... This says it is good for promoting discussion. Ironically similar to creo claims regarding ID. It in no way states that sound science lies at the foundation of his claims. And by the way, let me again point out that I am not saying ALL of his claims are flawed. I had specified where he was in error before, and the site backs that up in their more detailed discussion. I am upset with him for championing message of alarmism, over promoting good science. Boy I hope that guy gets a Nobel prize for making people aware of the threat of asteroid impacts... heheheh. But you haven't shown that. And if your statements on how the atmosphere works, and your inability to understand data presented to you is any indication, you got very little substance of climatology from his portrayal.That said, I do agree with your characterization. Gore portrays science. He neither practices it, nor understands it. His portrayal is adequate to understand that 1) global temps are increasing, 2) the CO2 level is higher than its ever been in Earth's history, and 3) there is a definite link between anthropogenic sources and the increase in global temps.He does not however help people understand the complexity of the system under discussion. He promotes a conspiracy theory paranoia about energy producing companies, to link skeptical scientists with them, or having been duped by them. And he promotes an inaccurate understanding of what the result of climate change actually is, and what stopping greenhouse gases is likely to accomplish. It is just us two talking crash. It's not an arena, with an audience. My position has not been demolished. That you would maintain that in spite of the evidence which has been presented to you, is sort of sad. But it does fit with the environmentalist fundamentalist position.Perhaps we are done. Answer these questions...1) Do you still believe that the scientists in the OP were being deceitful? That they had avoided looking at evidence which would have shown that they were wrong?2) Do you still believe that the atmosphere is best modeled by a frying pan?3) Do you still believe that an increase in solar input would necessarily result in increased global temps in a very short time frame?Your answers to the above will let me know whether we are done.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Bullshit, Holmes. I can read plain statements in English. "Opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise."Opposite to a rise is a decline, Holmes. Plain and simple. And no amount of misrepresenting the article can change that. I read it. It's not obvious that you have, at all. By unknown mechanism? By your assertion? Color me not impressed. How many caveats per unit bias? Be precise. There's certainly not "9 errors that a judge found", as was your original assertion. And indeed, it's not clear that any of those are errors at all. As the site makes clear each of Gore's controversial statements has sound science behind them.You're simply misrepresenting the sources. That's why you've not quoted anybody at all - because you know you can't. You know that everything you're trying to twist around to support your side actually contradicts it, that's why your posts consist only of your assertions with no supporting citations.It's open misrepresentation - a violation of rule 8 - "Avoid any form of misrepresentation." Yes. But look at the first part:

quote:

---

But behind each of these issues lies some fascinating, and in some cases worrying, scientific findings

---

See? It's a compound sentence - it has two points. And the first is that Gore's remarks had sound science behind them. That's the direct assertion of a source you're trying to claim contradicted Gore.That's simply untenable. Either you can't read English or you're driven to twist and spin material to support conclusions it can't coherently support.It's misrepresentation. What threat? Cite your source. No, but RealClimate has. And I've shown that you had nothing to support your assertions of "errors" but misrepresentation of other sources. What scientists, specifically? Cite your source. Of course there's an audience, Holmes. It's not just the Holmes and Crash show. (I wish there were an audience of admins to deal with your repeated violations of rule 8.) What evidence? You haven't provided any. You've simply misrepresented mine, and made assertions that have been proven inaccurate. Two of them are absolute misrepresentations. The third is not my belief but the clear scientific consensus, as well as thermodynamic reality. Why don't you end with one, specifically an apology for your relentless contrarianism, dishonesty, and misrepresentation? How do you explain your unbelievably dishonest behavior, Holmes?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

1) Are you now claiming you did not state that the scientists in the OP were being deceitful?2&3) They were actually parts of the same thing. To declare one a mischaracterization and then assert the absolute validity of the other is somewhat inconsistent. On these points... I said for you to read the statement (from the UK article) in context, and without the baggage of your frying pan earth model.You have no idea what you are talking about. I have tried to explain this to you and have presented links and quotes from scientists which explain this to you. Here then is the discussion from your own article... One might start by noting they did not reject the "dwindling group's" point regarding a gradual rise in solar output. If that is all they needed to do, and you were right about the trend, they could have simply set out the graphs. What they did was look at mechanisms particular events would have on earth temperatures. Read the yellow sections. They are discussing an analysis of mechanisms, and that the trends in solar output could not be related to the rapid rise in temps, regardless of mechanism.That first yellow section is of particular note. The amount of heat the sun emits does NOT impact the Earth's surface air temperature, due to the way the oceans absorb and retain heat. If you cannot understand that means your thermodynamic claims are in error, then we are through.I'm not going to claim you mischaracterized the article, but clearly you misunderstand it.Off the questions... I only mentioned that there was a case where a judge ruled on 9 errors in the movie, in order to bring up the responses to that ruling. You managed to get to the source of climatologists discussing the movie, but apparently decided not to read accompanying material. From RC... This is written by the main author. He clearly enjoyed the movie, and did not agree with comments made by his climatologist friends. I find him an apologist, which this last paragraph reveals.If a person takes the view that the message is more important than the content, then I would agree with his assessment of Gore's slideshow (though I disliked the movie) that the errors are minor. If a person takes the view that the content is just as important, because good science is necessary for properly understanding and making decisions, then one does not have to agree. I found his errors, which they call them that openly here, to be not so minor as it leads to confusion... especially in people like you who go on to argue with actual scientists as if they know better.If to win the battle of getting people to address climate change, we agree to dumb down science, and accept errors being propagated in the public mind, my feeling is that it is a Pyrrhic victory.And this is not to address this author's total gloss over Gore's use of Katrina, which I feel is horrible... both scientifically and "morally". His acceptance of Gore's ability to mention something unrelated or inaccurate with a handwave of "but he didn't specify" points toward personal bias. When Bush does this it is accurately portrayed for what it is, propaganda. It creates false links in people's minds.I guess I will leave it up to you to figure out why on one page the author calls them errors, and on another he chooses to soft peddle away from that term. It seems an obvious political apologist tactic, and a semantic argument to bridge the gap. I don't care if they are called errors or not. The science is not all right.Edited by Silent H, : more yellow

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I'm claiming that you're misrepresenting me, as always. Yet that's exactly what they rejected, Holmes, by noting that every trend of the Sun was precisely opposite what it would take to warm the atmosphere.The opposite of warming is cooling, Holmes. I don't know how more clear they could be in their assertion that, like me, they see the cooling trend of the Sun. I've shown where it is in two graphs. They see it too. The only way they could be more explicit in that is to come out and say "we agree with Crashfrog, a guy on the internet."It's plain English, Holmes. Anybody can see that - and can see that you're simply misrepresenting my sources. This is the statement of the journalist, not of the scientists, so I hardly see it as authoritative. It's contrary to thermodynamic reality. The atmosphere is what the energy of the Sun encounters first. Thus, it must invariably be the first to warm in response to a change in insolation.That's just indisputable, thermodynamically speaking. The atmosphere doesn't undergo a phase change, so there's no latent heat change. By ruling that there were no clear errors. But you failed to mention that.That's deceit - not giving the whole picture, when the whole picture contradicts your implication. Holmes, I just did a search and none of that text appears in the article we're talking about. If you're referring to a different article, you should really link to it. But the passages you quote aren't in the RC article we've been talking about. RealClimate: Convenient UntruthsMaybe you could improve your clarity, here, by giving links to materal and using proper names. I have literally no idea who you think you're talking about, here. Whose "climatologist friends"?When you're not misrepresenting, Holmes, you're incomprehensible. Could you work on that, please? I don't understand why it's such a challenge for you to be honest and clear. Who? What gloss? What the fuck are you talking about? What page, Holmes? What other page?What the fuck are you even talking about?