"Bill Ward" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:11:53 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:10:50 -0500, Bill Ward wrote:

Again, NOT EVEN A HYPOTHESIS. Their claim cannot be tested.

Skeptics (I, at least) ask to see the data and mechanisms showing the
existence and operation of these assumed positive feedbacks. As
proponents, it is up to them to show evidence (measured, not modeled)
that supports their hypothesis. It's not up to us to provide support
for their hypothesis, or any other.

The present situation is that proponents insist that the data
supporting their positive feedback theory is out there somewhere, but
none of them are willing or able to explain it specifically.

Actually, there have been several attempts using computer models. Each
and every one FAILED to predict. In REAL SCIENCE, at least how we do
science on Mars, this is called a "rejected hypothesis". Not with these
AGWers.

If proponents can't explain specifically and defend what they propose,
there is no proposition of which to be skeptical. It loses by default,
regardless of the blundering, bluster and bluff accompanying it.

That's why I'm encouraging those who want to be proponents to explain
specifically what they are proposing. Rob and perhaps TomP are, I
believe, trying to make an honest effort.

Most of the rest of the proponents are simply ignorant trolls, full of
themselves and little else.

It's the sycophant effect. By mindlessly parroting the claims of the
"scientist", they hope to gain respect from the respected glory.

Wow! You're even grouchier than I am. Congratulations. ;-)

I agree with Marvin, the AGWer claims are pathetic. I just don't care as
much about their claims to bother responding to them.
Stephen Wilde has a recent post to WUWT with a reference to Miskolczi here,
in his preliminary points
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/0...odel/#comments