See above point about "energy balance". If an unknown source is pouring heat into the planet which is not photonic, your models cannot be correct. One possible piece of evidence for "magnetic forcing" would be increased vulcanism (which is definitely happening), increasing the flow of heat and many chemicals into both oceans and air. The very recent discovery of many active underwater volcanoes under the Arctic is one datum. This is precisely the area where one would expect the interaction of the sun's field and the earth's field to be at a maximum.
This is positively Velikovskian. Science deals with reality, not the far-fetched fringe. And while we're at it, there is no appreciable effect from undersea volcanoes on the heat content of the oceans.
Well, there's also the New Zealand bunch (and others). And in fact, the more that the "leaked" information is studied and posted, the more "errors" (i.e. fraud) show up.
WW, you've been reading the wrong sources again!
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition caught lying about temperature trends
NZ sceptics lie about temp records, try to smear top scientist
Me too. After actually checking more widely into things, I am more convinced than ever that "global warming" is fraudulent. The number of model failures and outright rigging of data is even more astounding that I had at first believed.
And so it goes... considering that you didn't get positive water vapor feedback in models right, didn't get CO2 absorption in the atmosphere right, tried to use weather (influenced by El Nino) to refute climate change... you obviously have demonstrated the power to convince yourself of anything.
The bottom line of "Climategate" is that the ONLY acceptable solution is total transparency. ALL agencies involved must post all data, all models, and all "adjustments" on the internet for examination by anyone who wishes. In the end, it doesn't matter if "skeptics" are funded by Exxon, Saudi Arabia, or nobody but their own curiosity. If the points of science brought up are incorrect, it will show up as the science is done IF honest peer reviewing is in place. And all parties involved in any way with the effort to pervert the peer review process should be removed from any position in which they can, in future, do so. And all journal editors should refuse to allow them be be reviewers of any sort, or to influence publication in any way.
I agree with all of this, but I have two follow-up questions:
Should poor-quality scientific papers be excluded from publication in peer-reviewed journals on the basis of their poor quality?
How shall we judge the quality, integrity, and fairness of journal editors?
LOL. Point out to me where my physics is wrong.
"And while we're at it, there is no appreciable effect from undersea volcanoes on the heat content of the oceans."
And you know this how??? As regards the Arctic, we don't even know how many undersea volcanoes there are, much less whether they have any affect on the heat content of the ARCTIC Ocean. Nor do we know how the chemicals released affect the ARCTIC Ocean. The increase in vulcanism is real, the cause and effects unknown.
"And so it goes... considering that you didn't get positive water vapor feedback in models right,
I didn't realize that you wanted "Clintonian" preciseness of language. Yes, I used "water vapor" where I meant "water". Sue me.
:...didn't get CO2 absorption in the atmosphere right,
There seem to be a few other opinions about the spectroscopy and physics of CO2 in the atmosphere out there which are more in line with MY understanding of how Beer's law works. I "will" be working through both your sources and those. But, unlike you seem to, I don't have unlimited time during the work week to delve into this stuff.
"...tried to use weather (influenced by El Nino) to refute climate change..."
Last I looked, "climate" was the long-term summation of "weather".
...you obviously have demonstrated the power to convince yourself of anything.
Sorry, but I base my opinions on science. And right now, the "warmist" position has more holes than Swiss cheese. And the number of holes increases the more I study the issues. There are simply too many things that just do NOT "add up", and too much evidence of scientific dishonesty and outright fraud.
"Should poor-quality scientific papers be excluded from publication in peer-reviewed journals on the basis of their poor quality?"
Yes.
"How shall we judge the quality, integrity, and fairness of journal editors?"
By the use of HONEST, NON-CORRUPTED, peer review. Which has NOT been the case for climate science, as proven conclusively by the CRU's own emails.