>>The clear difference here is that the “Australians, not a definitive science source” are simply reporting the data findings of the new NASA Aqua Satellite; Al gore simply spouts opinions about facts he’s incapable of understanding, unless he’s acquired a climatologist or physics degree while we weren’t looking.
Do you have any constructive comments about the new data?
No?
Thought so.<<
No, they are reaching an unsubstantiated conclusion about the data and thus attacking the messenger is appropriate.
Here is the crux of the article. Doesn't sound like an conclusion to me; just the reporting of fact "a" followed by fact "b". But that's just me.
"What all the climate models suggest [actually this should read "assume", since model programs do not think, they simple are programmed to follow orders] is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."
Never - not even the biased ones.
Present the new data.