It never ceases to amaze me how the climate science community can without shame promote the idea of man made global warming as settled science, knowing what they and any objective observer can plainly see.
It does not take a scientist to see how much uncertainty there is in the art of climatology. To boldly proclaim that the science is settled on the entire AGW question is not only disgraceful, it is constantly exposed as a misrepresentation of facts on a daily basis.
Take the article "How Aerosols Contribute To Climate Change" from the usual alarmist Science Daily. These paragraphs alone ought to put the brakes on any congressman who is considering voting on upcoming legislation based on the claims of climate scientist.
I would ask any thinking person how such obviously incomplete knowledge and rigged assumptive projections could be used as a basis for far reaching energy, economic and societal changes.
Aerosol research is considered one of the most critical frontiers of climate change science, much of which is devoted to the creation of accurate projections of future climate. These projections are generated by computer models — simulations of phenomena such as warming patterns, sea level fluctuations, or drought trends. The raw data for the models can come from historical records of climate basics like temperature and precipitation, but scientists often must rely on incomplete data and best guesses to represent more complex phenomena. The more such uncertainty goes into a model, the greater its margin of error becomes, making it less reliable as a guide for forecasts and adaptive actions.
Among these complex phenomena, the actions of aerosols are what some researchers consider the field’s holy grail, representing the biggest barrier to producing accurate representations of climate. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 specifically listed the effect of aerosols on cloud formation as the largest source of uncertainty in present-day climate models.
To show just how incomplete and unsettled the knowledge of our esteemed science community is on this , consider this contradictory paragraph from the same article:
The aerosols could be influencing how much snowfall the Arctic gets and keeps. Human-produced aerosols are thought to stifle precipitation in some areas but may provide the impetus for torrential rain in others depending on their chemical make-up. Even if the Asian aerosols are not affecting precipitation, however, Russell said they appear to cool the Arctic atmosphere by deflecting light into space. At the same time, there is strong evidence that they are accelerating ice melt in the Arctic by darkening and heating ice once they fall to the ground the way a dark sweater makes its wearer hotter on a sunny day than does a white sweater.
Of course they cover all the bases with the typical mantra;
“We are trying to understand the major sources of aerosols in our atmosphere and how they affect the overall temperature of our planet; as opposed to greenhouse gases which we know are warming, aerosols can cool or warm depending on their composition and where they are located in the atmosphere"
The common sense question to this would be simply; " How can you be sure of the how much if any the increase in CO2 is or will warm the atmosphere if you have no idea how much the aerosols are affecting that same atmosphere?"
All this is complicated and not well understood and the research is obviously needed, but the idea that the climate science community and their play toy models can accurately portray any meaningful projections of future climate conditions is laughable at best. The idea that momentous policy is being implemented based on scientist's "incomplete data and best guesses" is criminal.