Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration (click)PhysOrg.COM offers you a press release:
They cleverly play with a theoretical toy model to demonstrate the wrong conclusions about the feedback strength that models and modelers often make - an approach that clearly makes theorists like myself happy. When the fixes are done, the climate sensitivity is shown to be much smaller. We have discussed this issue several times. For example, read the May article Spencer vs RealClimate.
In the press release, Spencer also repeats a thesis you may have read many times on this blog - namely that the climate is probably dominated by negative feedbacks, i.e. stabilizing mechanisms, not by positive feedbacks, i.e. destabilizing mechanisms. The apparent stability of the Earth for billions of years is a major reason to believe this general thesis.
Realists and Fritzl
For the sake of balance, let us also look at some cutting-edge research by the alarmist camp where the debate is already over so they can focus on more far-reaching aspects of climate science, including sociology and psychology. ;-)
At the beginning of 2007, Ellen Goodman discovered that climate skeptics were just like the holocaust deniers. The Right Reverend Gordon Mursell of Stafford (The Church of England), the Gentleman on the right side of the picture, has invented a better theory:
You could argue that, by our refusal to face the truth about climate change, we are as guilty as he is.Needless to say, Dr Mursell is an excellent scholar so he also constructs a perfect proof of his statement, according to the AGW and IPCC standards:
We are in effect locking our children and grandchildren into a world with no future and throwing away the key.Sounds convincing, doesn't it? :-) Mursell's theory has impressed most thinkers who believe the catastrophic man-made global warming. An isomorphism between the climate skeptics and a child molester is exactly the type of science that the IPCC expects and that the taxpayers from U.N. member countries pay for - which is why almost no one has complained. Excellent!
Stafford vs Chester
Mursell's colleague in the Church of England, Dr Peter Forster of Chester, was less lucky. Last week, he called "to allow science, not emotion, [to] lead the debate on global warming" which is a scientific "open question". Wow, what an explosive blasphemy! ;-)
Hasn't Forster noticed that, as pointed out in Mursell's profound words, science is just a lame excuse to do nothing and to continue with sins? What do you think that happened after Forster's shocking words?Friends of the Earth who plan the acquisition of the brotherly Church of England were particularly upset. They emphasized: "The debate is over. The alarm bells are ringing." Amen.
Well, it doesn't seem that the Church of England has a unified approach to the issue of the Anti-Christ.
The Church Times report on that.Well, I think it is a kind of blasphemy that the Church of England allows degenerated intercourse-baskets of Mursell's type to scream in its cathedrals and to use the name of God to spread his witchcraft. ;-)