Just another hitch in the get along

When I originally posted a synopsis of Dr. Richard Muller's presentation I focused on and much was made of his comment:

"if you believe we can get a favor from God by praying, I suggest you pray that cloud cover will kick in because if my evaluation is right when I show you what the problem is and if the global warming models are right, and I think they are very likely right, then we are going to have global warming."

Although it is true that the reason I focused on the quote was to draw attention to the fact that Dr Muller had  expressed a belief in the "consensus"  view of global warming and ought not be championed by the "realist" community as some sort of redeemer, I failed to point out a more important issue in regards to his statement. It is not as if Dr Muller is alone in a complete lack of objectivity, it is just that his is so blatantly obvious.

To make the point I will post a bit longer section of  the video containing the the above quote.

It is obvious that Dr Muller is well aware of the serious problem that the science of global warming has with the "cloud cover uncertainty" and its potential impact on the theory itself. Which I briefly pointed out:

Consider that for a moment. Immediately after explaining the great uncertainty in the hypothesis behind global warming he says he believes the global warming models are right.

It is also obvious that Dr Muller has a very good grasp of the theory of global warming  He even mentions but fails to explain the significance of the "enhanced greenhouse effect" of water vapor.  He also appears to be conversant on the IPCC literature, he even mentions where you can find a reference to the "cloud cover uncertainty" in the report.  I presume he is referring to the following from AR 4 (all emphasis mine)

in reality, due to feedback, the response of the climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the overall effect of the feedback amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.

 Although discussions on the "cloud cover uncertainty" is found throughout AR 4 such as:

The response of cloud cover to increasing greenhouse gases currently represents the largest uncertainty in model predictions of climate sensitivity

 or these

Moreover, the spread of climate sensitivity estimates among current models arises primarily from inter-model differences in cloud feedback Colman, 2003a; Soden and Held, 2006; Webb et al., 2006; Section 8.6.2, Figure 8.14). Therefore, cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates...

...The sign of the climate change radiative feedback associated with the combined effects of dynamical and temperature changes on extratropical clouds is still unknown.

The role of polar cloud feedbacks in climate sensitivity has been emphasized by Holland and Bitz (2003) and Vavrus (2004). However, these feedbacks remain poorly understood.

There are dozens of such references to the "cloud cover uncertainty" issue but then again the science of global warming is rife with uncertainties on numerous issues so this is by no means unique. What I do find unique or at least very troubling is how scientist such as the esteemed Dr Muller can be aware of all these uncertainties and yet "think they (the models) are very likely right." 

This has become the normal operating method in the climate science field, even when it does not involve climate scientist. For all his dramatic outrage at the scientist involved in the "climategate" scandal, Dr Muller seems  totally willing to ignore inconvenient truths in his own analysis on the state of the science underpinning  global warming. He is not alone as  the vast majority of the rest of the scientific community seems to accept the theory on it's face without the least bit of critical thinking.

Consider the "enhanced greenhouse effect" which Dr Muller briefly explains in the above clip. The importance of this can not be ignored, yet the scientific community including Dr Muller seem more than willing to do just that. In the same section of AR4 synthesis report that Dr Muller alludes to actually just a couple of paragraphs later, we find this:

The so-called water vapour feedback, caused by an increase in atmospheric water vapour due to a temperature increase, is the most important feedback responsible for the amplification of the temperature increase.

As I have pointed out in the past  this is why the historical temperature record is vital to proping up the theory:

The importance of whether or not the MWP was warmer than today really has little to do with precedented or unprecedented as if it was some sort of sports record, the real importance has to do with the "enhanced" greenhouse theory itself. If a period of time measured in centuries not decades were more than 1.2 degrees warmer on average than is projected to occur due to increased CO2, what happened to the famous tipping point ?

Yet the problems with the enhanced greenhouse effect which is the theory of global warming is just ignored.  As I posted recently there is no proof that there is any enhanced greenhouse effect and just like the "cloud cover uncertainty" not only is there no way to prove the effect there is not even a way to measure it. From NOAA

Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.

and

...The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries,

Almost all aspects of climate science show a similar lack of concern for actual proof for the theory of man made global warming but these two issues are beyond just small inconveniences, they are the very foundation of the theory itself. Still the scientific community goes merrily along their way hiding their collective eyes from the fact that there is no proof backing up their mega-billion dollar assertions.

The theory is all the proof that is needed. It does not even matter that the two most important elements to that theory can not even be measured. They somehow are able to convince themselves that they can input values representing unmeasurable data into their
computer models and come up with a projection of a future world when they are incapable of measuring the one that they actually live in.

 For the scientific community little distractions like this are not meant to be thoroughly examined and explained, at least  as to why their theory still holds true. No, minor foundational questions like this are just another hitch in the get along to greater prestige and rewards.


And they still call this science.