As promised in the now closed CRU-hack thread, this is intended to show why I am convinced that the cause for global warming is overstated and that changes in use of fossil fuel and CO2 production will have little effect on climate. I will try and stick to the scientific method, no room for politics and groupthink. This would include the basic Popperian falsification principle. Maybe in a bit more fuzzy way. If something doesn’t work nearly as strong as advertised, it can’t be held responsible being the main cause for rising temperatures, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, etc. So we can look at perceived climate changes in the past, geologic records, temperature graphs, oceanic behavior, tree ring, ice cores, anything but correlation is not equal to correlation. You’d still need a physically valid mechanism to explain it, as part of the scientific method. So doesn’t greenhouse effect exist? You bet it does. However the point is, in what extend? And the whole thing can be regressed to two simple questions: A: What is the basic climate sensitivity (Planck response) of doubling the CO2 concentration? B: How is that modified by possible feedbacks? The “IPCC-answer” to the first question seems to be around one degree Celsius. Sylas explains: I’m perfectly happy with that. And the main dispute is not about A but about B: How is that modified by possible feedbacks? That’s the key. If the overall feedback is positive the sensitivity value would get “amplified”, whereas negative feedback would reduce the sensivity value. This is what the scientific climate dispute boils down to. In this thread I will show why I think that negative feedback prevails.