Let me preface this by saying that the 1971 doom-prophecies do cast a bad light on global warming and the change of opinion needs to be publicly addressed by Hansen.
Now, having said that...this article appears to have been written in an Exxon boardroom by a committee of chuckling robber-barrons in top hats...being served a puree made from the hearts of orphans.
Logic 101: just because Exxon might have written a report against AGW it doesn't automatically mean that it's false and can be dismissed without further consideration
It doesn't mean that it can immediately be dismissed, but you can certainly take into account prior or perceived behaviour of a party when making a claim, especially if they have strong economic motive to deceive you.
What is it with this crusade against people who have a problem with large amounts of C02 emissions? Why believe people who, for the most part, have every reason to lie (Hannity, Glenn Beck, Exxon executives) over the majority of credentialed scientists? Experiment for you: Take 2 thermometers. Take 2 bottles. Put a thermometer in 1. Close it. Set a match on fire. Put it in the second bottle, enclosed with the thermometer (this will cause CO2 to be created). Read both thermometers after a few hours, to negate any temperature difference that may be caused by the fire. One will read a higher temperature. Guess which one? Guess why? Mail results to Fox News for extra credit. [/Flame off]
The first bottle contains the ratio of elements as contained in our atmosphere. The second has an increased ratio of C02 in proportion to the remaining nitrogen, oxygen, and trace elements. The CO2 bottle would have a greater thermal retention coefficient than the bottle with the normal proportion and would exhibit a greater increase in temperature if exposed to sunlight. Greater ratio of Co2, greater ratio of IR energy retention.
Our atmosphere has clouds, aerosols, cosmic rays and solar forcing effects too. Plus the bottle experiment assumes that there will be no scaling problems.
Sure. And there are plenty more effects you haven't even mentioned. What about the changing population ratio between people with white skin and dark skin? More dark skin means more heat absorption which means more global warming.
Of course the effect is probably 1 zillionth the size of the effect of CO2, but apparently thats irrelevant to global warming skeptics. I'll admit the effect cosmic rays on cloud formation is quite creative, but I think their are even more ridiculous and irrelevant effects out their if you were really trying.
The only honest scientific rebuttal of AGW at this stage is a model inclusive of all known effects (including CO2) that predicts current temperature patterns better than AGW models do. Positing inputs to the system without reference to magnitude and other inputs is absolutely insufficient.
"The only honest scientific rebuttal of AGW at this stage is a model inclusive of all known effects (including CO2) that predicts current temperature patterns better than AGW models do."
It would be sufficient rebuttal of the AGW model to simply show that temperatures don't rise as predicted. A model to predict the future stands or falls on it's ability to predict the future.
For example if I had a model of the stock market that failed to predict the market that model couldn't be be considered to be correct so long as nobody could come up with a better model. The failure of my stock market model to predict the future would be enough to show that my model didn't work.
I concede that the future is the absolute measure of a prediction. But its not a very powerful tool for deciding to act or not in any situation before that future arrives.
If you had a stock market model that's based on very observable micro effects and your model predicts past stock prices well, would you use it to invest? Of course the answer very much depends on your levels of certainty, but if you don't invest now you won't make any money.
You are correct; that simple experiment does not take into account all of the external effects. With regard to scaling, I am guessing that you refer to feedback effects produced by plant production of oxygen from the CO2. My assumption is that the rate plant growth on the planet will stay constant, or, at the rate we are going, vastly decrease (rainforests, etc) which will worsen the effect. Also, economic growth planet wide can only increase energy consumption, and therefore, CO2 production. I don't think there are any off-base assumptions there, but I am open to the evidence of some.
You see? You see? Sometimes scientists are wrong! Since experts are unable to predict the possibly dramatic results of climate change, it means we, who know nothing about meteorology or climate modelling, have carte blanche to ignore everything they say and pollute as much as possible!
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to drive my 1.5 children to Little League in a Hummer.
Now, having said that...this article appears to have been written in an Exxon boardroom by a committee of chuckling robber-barrons in top hats...being served a puree made from the hearts of orphans.