Recent Paper from Dr. Lindzen

[ajmplanner]

A new paper from Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Choi appears to falsify some AGW claims through analysis of observational data.  The paper is quite technical, so if Dr. Courney or anyone else can transalte this paper into English for the rest of us, that would be helpful.  Thanks.  Link to the paper at

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/ne...m-lindzen/

[Richard S Courtney.]

I will try to make time to look at it tomorrow.  Sorry if this delay is a problem.

Richard

[Richard S Courtney.]

ajmplanner:

You asked;

“A new paper from Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Choi appears to falsify some AGW claims through analysis of observational data.  The paper is quite technical, so if Dr. Courney or anyone else can transalte this paper into English for the rest of us, that would be helpful.  Thanks.  Link to the paper at

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/ne...m-lindzen/”

And I said I would try.  The following is my attempt.

The paper is titled
“On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data”
is by Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
and was revised on July 14, 2009 for publication to Geophysical Research Letters

Lindzen & Choi (hereafter refered to as L&C) analysed data from the ERBE experiment.

As brief explanation of the ERBE experiment I can do no better than to quote NASA at
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/ASDerbe.html

It says there:

“The radiation budget represents the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing thermal (longwave) and reflected (shortwave) energy from the Earth. In the 1970's, NASA recognized the importance of improving our understanding of the radiation budget and its effects on the Earth's climate. Langley Research Center was charged with developing a new generation of instrumentation to make accurate regional and global measurements of the components of the radiation budget. The Goddard Space Flight Center built the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) on which the first ERBE instruments were launched by the Space Shuttle Challenger in 1984. ERBE instruments were also launched on two National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather monitoring satellites, NOAA 9 and NOAA 10 in 1984 and 1986.”

Additional information on ERBE can be obtained by using the links in that URL.

The radiation budget is important because
(i)  If the Earth obtains more “incoming energy from the Sun” than the Earth emits to space as “outgoing thermal (longwave) and reflected (shortwave) energy” then the Earth will warm.
but
(ii) If the Earth obtains less “incoming energy from the Sun” than the Earth emits to space as “outgoing thermal (longwave) and reflected (shortwave) energy” then the Earth will cool.

(As an aside, it should be noted that warming or cooling need not mean change in temperature because it could take the forms of e.g. melting of ice or freezing of water at constant temperature).

Radiative forcing
is the change to the flux of radiation at the tropopause (i.e. the top of the troposphere which is the lowest layer of the atmosphere).

Climate sensitivity
is the degree of response of the climate system to a change in radiative forcing.  It is usually stated as an average change of global temperature for a change of radiative forcing equivalent to the change in radiative forcing from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. 

Feedback
Is a change to the climate sensitivity different from that expected purely from a change to the radiation budget.  Positive feedback provides more change to temperature than expected (i.e. high climate sensitivity).  And negative feedback provides less change to temperature than expected (i.e. low climate sensitivity).


So, L&C obtained the data provided by the ERBE experiment of
(a) incoming energy from the Sun to the Earth
and
(b) outgoing thermal (longwave) and reflected (shortwave) energy from the Earth to space.

They concentrated their studies on the data obtained from tropical regions of the Earth.  The bulk of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth is received in the tropics (which is why the tropics are hot).

And they found that
“for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs).”

And they report
“The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity.”

In other words, they observed that in the tropics the sea surface warms LESS than could be expected from an increased heat input.  (The feedbacks are observed to be negative and this would tend to negate any warming).

This is important because, as L&C say,
“This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs.”

In other words, the models say that in the tropics the sea surface warms MORE than expected from an increased heat input.  (The feedbacks suggested by the models are positive and this would tend to enhance any warming).

The reason for the observed negative feedbacks is not revealed by the L&C study, but they do explain the difference between what they observed and what the models suggest.  They say;
“Results also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation.”

Simply, L&C find the negative feedback is provided by reflected radiation and this suggests it is a result of changes to albedo (i.e. the reflectivity of the Earth) probably provided by changes to low level clouds. 

But the models suggest a positive feedback would be provided by radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface and from greenhouse gases in the air.

In reality, the positive and negative feedbacks probably both exist.  L&C find the net effect of the feedbacks is negative while the models suggest the net affect is positive.

Importantly, L&C suggest
“it is evident that, because the system attempts to restore equilibrium, there will be a tendency to underestimate negative feedbacks relative to positive feedbacks that are associated with longer response times.”

Put another way, L&C are saying that the negative feedbacks happen fast but the positive feedbacks occur over longer time.  So, observations over decadal time will clearly show the positive feedbacks but the negative feedbacks could be ‘overlooked’ to some degree because they do not occur over such long times (they will be intermittent ‘events’ within the measurement period).

Very importantly, L&C say
“ERBE data appear to demonstrate a climate sensitivity of about 0.5°C which is easily distinguished from sensitivities given by models.”

In other words, L&C say their analysis indicates that if atmospheric CO2 concentration were to double then global temperature would only increase by “about 0.5°C”:  this is much less than the rise of between 3.5 and 6 °C the models suggest for a doubling of CO2. 

However, their findings are from the tropical region and the feedbacks may differ at distances from the tropics.  Therefore, L&C say;
“Following Lindzen et al. [2001], allowing for sharing this tropical feedback with neutral higher latitudes could reduce the negative feedback factor by about a factor of two. This would lead to an equilibrium sensitivity that is 2/3 rather than 1/2 of the non-feedback value. This, of course, is still a small sensitivity.”

So, when the different feedback magnitudes of non-tropical regions are considered then it could be that L&C’s determination of climate sensitivity would double from “about 0.5°C” to about 1 °C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.  But that is still much less than is suggested by the climate models.

The ERBE data is not capable of determining the mechanisms that provide the magnitudes of the feedbacks but L&C are now studying more recent data from CALIOP in an attempt to determine the mechanisms.

I hope the above ‘translation’ is clear and adequate.  Let me know if not.

Richard

[ajmplanner]

Thank you Dr. Courtney for the transalation.  You are an incredible asset to this forum and for all of us non-climatologists who try to get the word out that AGW hysteria is not based on observable data and is more of a political "science" than real science.

[Sunsettommy]

[quote author=ajmplanner link=topic=286.msg2066#msg2066 date=1256351405]
Thank you Dr. Courtney for the transalation.  You are an incredible asset to this forum and for all of us non-climatologists who try to get the word out that AGW hysteria is not based on observable data and is more of a political "science" than real science.
[/quote]

Dr. Courtney is an asset to the public,because he is posting in a few select forums,FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC.Not post with a bunch of skeptical scientists in closed forums,who do not post anywhere else,that would help the public understand why we have many skeptics of the AGW hypothesis,and we have many skeptical scientists,in this world.

[Richard S Courtney.]

Sunsettommy:

You say;
"a bunch of skeptical scientists in closed forums,who do not post anywhere else,that would help the public understand why we have many skeptics of the AGW hypothesis,and we have many skeptical scientists,in this world."

This is unfair to scientists who are human beings with responsibilities to feed, house and clothe their families.

Most scientists’ work depends on funds fully or partly provided by governments.  Also, all scientists compete to obtain their share of this limited resource.  AGW has become the ‘scientific’ issue of most interest to governments.  Hence, any case for funding support tends to include reference to global warming whenever possible. 

If there are two identical research proposals and one mentions AGW but the other does not then the one that mentions AGW gets the money because it is "policy relevant".

Much science in many fields may be conducted under the guise of a relationship to AGW.  Indeed, if anybody cares to mention any possible research proposal then I can tell them how to relate it to AGW.

Activities which have obtained funds by this method include biology, meteorology, computer science, physics, chemistry, climatology, oceanography, civil engineering, process engineering, forestry, astronomy, and several other disciplines. 

Now, funds for this work are provided to most Universities and several commercial research establishments throughout the entire world.  Total expenditure by governments for AGW research totals about $5 billion p.a..  The US government alone is spending over $2 billion p.a. on it. 

I have my snout in the trough.

Scientific institutions have a severe incentive to protect this funding because several of their Members’ jobs depend on it.  For example, the UK’s Royal Society has become a major propaganda mouthpiece on AGW.  Also, some leading scientific journals (e.g.  Nature and Science) have become organs for promoting the AGW scare because this is popular with their readers who use the scare to obtain funds. 

Much peer pressure deters scientists from damaging potential sources of research funds.  There is especial pressure – loss of future career – to avoid ‘shooting the golden goose’ by proclaiming the scientific truth of AGW and thus damaging the research funding of colleagues.  Indeed, Henrik Tenekes was sacked from his job as the Director of Holland’s equivalent of the UK's Met. Office because he told the truth about AGW.  Some US State Climatologists have been sacked for doing it, too. 

Not everybody has to be sacked for everybody to get the message.

But failure to proclaim the scientific truth does not mean that many scientists believe in the AGW hypothesis.  In 1992 – prior to the Rio Earth Summit – Greenpeace International conducted a survey of the world’s 400 leading climatologists.  Greenpeace had hoped to publicise the results of that survey in the run-up to the Rio summit, but when they completed the survey, they gave very little publicity to its results.  In response to the survey, only 15 climatologists were willing to say they believed in AGW.  Furthermore, many scientists have spoken out against the global warming scare despite the severe pressure not to.  The 1992 Heidelberg Appeal says the IPCC assertions of AGW result from “pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data”, and was signed by more than 2,000 scientists including 62 Nobel Prize winners.  The Leipzig Declaration, which was drafted following the Leipzig Climate Conference in November 1995, also disputes the IPCC assertions about AGW and was signed by over 1,500 scientists from around the world.  Recently, over 30,000 US scientists have signed a petition that says global warming is based on “unfounded panic-mongering based on flawed ideas”. 

Ah, say AGW-scaremongers, those people are not climate scientists.  Well, nor is James Hansen, head of climate studies for NASA:  he is a cosmologist.  And nor is Rajendra Pechauri, Chairman of the IPCC:  he is a railway engineer.  And nor ….  Meanwhile real climatologists such as Lindzen, Landsea and Spencer are sidelined because they tell the truth about the AGW scare.

But that is politics for you.

Richard

P.S.  Why this Dr Courtney business?  It implies authority.  Words should be assessed on their merit, not on the titles of who said them.

[Sunsettommy]

I wrote:

Quote:"a bunch of skeptical scientists in closed forums,who do not post anywhere else,that would help the public understand why we have many skeptics of the AGW hypothesis,and we have many skeptical scientists,in this world."

Mr. Courtney,

Your reply indicate that you misunderstood my comment's intent.Yes I agree that many have to protect themselves from persecution if they were so openly against the AGW hypothesis.

What I am talking about is that many people like me who lack the full science training,but put up the effort to fight the disinformation the alarmists put up,would appreciate help from some of the scientists in closed forums such as the one in Yahoo.I have a thread titled worthy articles to read,and not a single time has any scientist,who has been here helped me post them for the public's need to learn the real story and evidence that the CO2 hypothesis is a feeble one.

They could have sent me Personal Messages or use anonymous username,and contribute here or in other skeptical forums at least once in a while,that would energize the forum with such injection of scientific quality.

I see people like Richard111,Derek and JohnWho try some of the more complicated mathematics end,that surely could use some help and support by those scientists who do most of their skeptical talk OUTSIDE of the public view.Since many good scientists often has some skill in mathematics to offer,what a help it can be to see some of that expertise be put to use in forums?

Your presence here and in other forums IN THE PUBLIC'S VIEW,please's me to no end,since your contribution in them can be read by the public at large,who over time can understand better what is the skepticism position in the AGW/global warming/climate change discussions.

Scientists and well educated people spend too much time discussing science out of the public view (closed forums),thus while they may learn more deeply,the public does not and that is why the alarmists are beating us up successfully in the public's view.The only reason why their hold on the public is weakening,is because their media enablers and themselves,went way overboard with the doomsday messages and there has been no verification of such predictions from over 20 years ago.People have tired of the absurd "the sky is falling" mantra and are turning to other things in life,all the while tuning them out.But many people are no wiser in the process,thus they are still open to being manipulated by alarmists,who might refine their mantra to a lesser doomsday outlook and prey on their fears to win them back.

That is my fear and why I am increasingly pushing for some scientists to contribute more in open forums,for the BENEFIT of the public.Not necessarily post with their real names.I understand the need to remain in the background,but their knowledge and expertise are badly needed in a public who are being assailed every day with the AGW propaganda.

There is a private forum here,for a select number of members to participate in,who help each other for information to use in debating alarmists elsewhere.None of the members there are scientists,but by golly we try to support scientists in our own way with information,that get posted in other forums,for the benefit of the public! It is the public we have to educate,who in turn can pressure their elected officials to support good science and less propaganda.

Please understand that I am not angry with the scientists themselves,just disappointed at their lack of support in helping average skeptics in the forums.

I was only trying to be respectful using your title as Doctor with your name.

[Richard S Courtney.]

Sunsettommy:

I seem to have been misundertood.

I wrote:
"P.S.  Why this Dr Courtney business?  It implies authority.  Words should be assessed on their merit, not on the titles of who said them. "

I meant exactly what I wrote.  There is no need for titles.  Surely we can interact with amity, mutual respect and tolerance without providing any indications of 'rank'?  I have signed all my poting here as "Richard".

But you replied with a message addressed to "Mr Courtney" which ended saying;
"I was only trying to be respectful using your title as Doctor with your name."

OK.  I understand that, and I thank you for it. 

But I stand by my point.  If we are to be respectful here then, in my opinion, we should be properly respectful to all, and not especially respectful to some.  Therefore, I think we should address each other by name and not by title.  (Perhaps this opinion is coloured by my British origin.  We use titles a lot and many are inherited but not earned so titles are used to provide degrees of respect.)

Anyway, I apologise if I provided offence. That was not my intention and I hope this explanation shows that.

Richard

[Sunsettommy]

[quote author=Richard S Courtney link=topic=286.msg2078#msg2078 date=1256416535]
Sunsettommy:

I seem to have been misundertood.

I wrote:
"P.S.  Why this Dr Courtney business?  It implies authority.  Words should be assessed on their merit, not on the titles of who said them. "

I meant exactly what I wrote.  There is no need for titles.  Surely we can interact with amity, mutual respect and tolerance without providing any indications of 'rank'?  I have signed all my poting here as "Richard".

But you replied with a message addressed to "Mr Courtney" which ended saying;
"I was only trying to be respectful using your title as Doctor with your name."

OK.  I understand that, and I thank you for it. 

But I stand by my point.  If we are to be respectful here then, in my opinion, we should be properly respectful to all, and not especially respectful to some.  Therefore, I think we should address each other by name and not by title.  (Perhaps this opinion is coloured by my British origin.  We use titles a lot and many are inherited but not earned so titles are used to provide degrees of respect.)

Anyway, I apologise if I provided offence. That was not my intention and I hope this explanation shows that.

Richard
[/quote]

I was never offended.

I will respectfully call you by your name,as I have already started to in my previous post,in response to your request that I stop posting your title.

I think you will realize over time that I am rather tolerant of people as long as they are productive in communication.If they stray into trolling and name calling then I usually get harder on them and even make fun of their shabby replies.

Cheers.

[Goose52]

Thank you Richard for your wonderful translation.  This thread inspired me to go back and read some of Lindzen's other papers.  Specifically this one. Lindzen describes something truly amazing in the introduction.

Quote:It was understood that the papers presented at the conference would be published, but, for reasons that I am not privy to, the publication was delayed for over two years . During this interval, papers were, apparently modified, and, in 1 particular, the paper by Rahmstorf was turned into a specific attack on my paper.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/...change.pdf

In reviewing this work I stumbled across a reference to S. Fred Singer winning a liable suit.  I never heard about any of this.  So I found the footnote and went searching.  I found this.

http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_283.pdf

Very interesting.  Perhaps this might explain some scientist reluctance to stick their neck out.  

[Richard S Courtney.]

Goose5 and all others interested in the AGW issue:

I commend the paper titled,'Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?' by Richard Lindzen

It can be downloaded at
http://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762v1.pdf

The paper catalogues the deliberate corruption of climate science, several scientific organisations and several science journals.

Lindzen is the Alfred Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT.  As such he is beyond doubt the foremost climatologist in the world at present.  Hence, he is unassailable and can speak out with no fear of significant attack from the pygmies who scare about climate.

Read, learn, enjoy.

Richard

[Mike Davis]

RSC:
Thanks for providing the link. I have that already on my computer, along with some of your reports. I do not have the band width to do much searching and my personal memory is slowly fading due to neurological issues. So I thank you for reminding me to reread that one.

[ajmplanner]

The paper I originally cited to start this thread and the Lindzen paper referenced above by Dr. Courtney complement each other beautifully to explain the polluted atmosphere (pardon the pun) within which this whole AGW debate must live.  It explains why it is hard to get the truth out and to get any real coverage by the media.  Gore, his scientist allies, poweful environmental groups, and the IPCC control the language, the bully pulpit, the media, and establish the rules for the debate.  In the end it will have to be the US citizens who may not understand all of this and the science behind it, but who understand when their incomes and purchasing power are being threatened, to thunderously defeat the high tax and economy destroying Cap and Trade bill wending its way through Congress.  Perhaps bolstered by success in stalling the Health Care Reform bill, they (we) can mount another attack on a bill that uses science fiction as its basis but is really motivated by politics and ideology.

[Richard S Courtney.]

ajmplanner:

With respect, the problem is worse than you suggest when you assert,
"In the end it will have to be the US citizens who may not understand all of this and the science behind it". 

The 'public' are inhibited from understanding what is happening whether or not they are capable of understanding.  This because, at present, the basic science is fraudulent both in
(a) its application and
(b) its presentation. 

For example, in the link I provided (above) Lindzen says;
"The IPCC regularly, through the 4th assessment, boasted of the ability of models to simulate this cooling (while failing to emphasize that each model required a different specification of of completely undetermined aerosol cooling in order to achieve this simulation (Kiehl, 2007)."

Lindzen's statement is correct.  However, this nature of the models had been reported in peer reviewed literature (by me) long, long before 2007
(ref. Courtney RS, ‘An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre’, Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999).

That paper was published in 1999 (n.b. a decade ago) and it states that the 2nd IPCC Assessment Report made the same misrepresentation as Lindzen reports for the IPCC's 4th assessment.  And the only difference between my paper and Kiehl's (except for mine having been published 8 years earlier) is that my paper reported what had been done with the Hadley Centre GCM and Kiehl's paper reports that other GCMs have adopted the same 'adjustment'.

My 1999 paper reports that the Hadley Centre GCM showed an unrealistic high warming trend over the twentieth century, and a cooling effect was added to overcome this drift. The cooling was assumed to be a result of anthropogenic aerosol.

So, cooling was input to the GCM to match the geographical distribution of the aerosol. And the total magnitude of the cooling was input to correct for the model drift: this was reasonable because the actual magnitude of the aerosol cooling effect is not known.

This was a reasonable model test. If the drift were a result of aerosol cooling then the geographical pattern of warming over the twentieth century indicated by the model would match observations.

However, the output of this model test provided a pattern of geographic variation in the warming that was very different from observations; e.g. the model predicted most cooling where most warming was observed.

This proved that the aerosol cooling was not the cause – or at least not the major cause – of the model drift.

The Hadley Centre overcame this unfortunate result by reporting the agreement of the global average temperature rise with observations. But THIS AGREEMENT WAS FIXED AS AN INPUT TO THE TEST! It was fixed by adjusting the degree of input cooling to make it fit!

However, this use of supposed ‘aerosol cooling’ to compensate for the model drift means that any input reduction to anthropogenic aerosol cooling must result in the model providing drift which is wrongly indicated as global warming.

In any other branch of science this 'aerosol cooling' fix would be considered to be incompetence at best and fraud at worst

Importantly, this one fact alone proves - beyond any possibility of doubt - that the climate models provide incorrect indications of global warming.  My paper reported this in 1999, and no subsequent dispute of it has been published.  Eight years later Kiehle's paper reported the same, and there has been no published dispute of it.

So, it has been known for a decade that the predictions of global warming provided by the models are not valid.
Three IPCC so-called scientific reports have ignored the certain fact that the predictions of global warming provided by the models are not valid.
The mass media has not reported that
1. it has been known for a decade that the predictions of global warming provided by the models are not valid
and
2. three IPCC so-called scientific reports have ignored the certain fact that the predictions of global warming provided by the models are not valid.

In these circumstances it is not possible for the public to "understand all of this and the science behind it".

Regards

Richard

[Sunsettommy]

(11-07-2009 03:36 AM)Richard S Courtney Wrote:  ajmplanner:

With respect, the problem is worse than you suggest when you assert,
"In the end it will have to be the US citizens who may not understand all of this and the science behind it". 

The 'public' are inhibited from understanding what is happening whether or not they are capable of understanding.  This because, at present, the basic science is fraudulent both in
(a) its application and
(b) its presentation. 

For example, in the link I provided (above) Lindzen says;
"The IPCC regularly, through the 4th assessment, boasted of the ability of models to simulate this cooling (while failing to emphasize that each model required a different specification of of completely undetermined aerosol cooling in order to achieve this simulation (Kiehl, 2007)."

Lindzen's statement is correct.  However, this nature of the models had been reported in peer reviewed literature (by me) long, long before 2007
(ref. Courtney RS, ‘An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre’, Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999).

That paper was published in 1999 (n.b. a decade ago) and it states that the 2nd IPCC Assessment Report made the same misrepresentation as Lindzen reports for the IPCC's 4th assessment.  And the only difference between my paper and Kiehl's (except for mine having been published 8 years earlier) is that my paper reported what had been done with the Hadley Centre GCM and Kiehl's paper reports that other GCMs have adopted the same 'adjustment'.

My 1999 paper reports that the Hadley Centre GCM showed an unrealistic high warming trend over the twentieth century, and a cooling effect was added to overcome this drift. The cooling was assumed to be a result of anthropogenic aerosol.

So, cooling was input to the GCM to match the geographical distribution of the aerosol. And the total magnitude of the cooling was input to correct for the model drift: this was reasonable because the actual magnitude of the aerosol cooling effect is not known.

This was a reasonable model test. If the drift were a result of aerosol cooling then the geographical pattern of warming over the twentieth century indicated by the model would match observations.

However, the output of this model test provided a pattern of geographic variation in the warming that was very different from observations; e.g. the model predicted most cooling where most warming was observed.

This proved that the aerosol cooling was not the cause – or at least not the major cause – of the model drift.

The Hadley Centre overcame this unfortunate result by reporting the agreement of the global average temperature rise with observations. But THIS AGREEMENT WAS FIXED AS AN INPUT TO THE TEST! It was fixed by adjusting the degree of input cooling to make it fit!

However, this use of supposed ‘aerosol cooling’ to compensate for the model drift means that any input reduction to anthropogenic aerosol cooling must result in the model providing drift which is wrongly indicated as global warming.

In any other branch of science this 'aerosol cooling' fix would be considered to be incompetence at best and fraud at worst

Importantly, this one fact alone proves - beyond any possibility of doubt - that the climate models provide incorrect indications of global warming.  My paper reported this in 1999, and no subsequent dispute of it has been published.  Eight years later Kiehle's paper reported the same, and there has been no published dispute of it.

So, it has been known for a decade that the predictions of global warming provided by the models are not valid.
Three IPCC so-called scientific reports have ignored the certain fact that the predictions of global warming provided by the models are not valid.
The mass media has not reported that
1. it has been known for a decade that the predictions of global warming provided by the models are not valid
and
2. three IPCC so-called scientific reports have ignored the certain fact that the predictions of global warming provided by the models are not valid.

In these circumstances it is not possible for the public to "understand all of this and the science behind it".

Regards

Richard

It is nice to bring up past history,of your effort to point out the problem.