AGW flaws - a cut-out-and-keep guide

Here at ACM, one tends to get bogged down wading through heaps of RSS feeds, overwhelmed with yet more dire alarmist stories in our media, grovelling around in the minutiae, and sometimes it's helpful just to remind oneself of the big picture: the fundamental flaws in the AGW alarmists' arguments.

Jeff Id, over at The Air Vent, has a great article based on a post in a thread at Watts Up With That, which brilliantly summarises the gaping holes in the alarmists' case. Here's a quick extract:

Based on this flakey data, folks build castles in the sky. They do this with computer models. (I’m a ‘computer guy’ by trade and managed a Cray supercomputer site that did modeling for plastic flow so this one galls me.) The models are ‘not very good’ to put it charitably. The don’t match reality. Their predictions are regularly shown to be bogus. When you do get a little look at how they work, it is not convincing. They leave out major, perhaps even dominant, features of climate. (Cloud formation of all sorts, cosmic rays that lead to cloud formation, variation in the sun, many most or all of the various ocean oscillations and heat transfer anomalies ENSO, AMO, etc.) Oh, and we have a specific admission by at least one of the modelers that they deliberately made the model run fast for more dramatic effect. That 50 year doom? Even their model would say it’s 150 years away if not run on ‘juice’. We have public quotes from ’scientists’ in the field saying they need to punch up the results to create stronger public responses…

Great stuff. Read it all here.