Hansen thinks that absorption outweighs shading.
And therein lay the problem. Others of the same and even greater stature in the fields applicable to the study global climate and the impact of the "Greenhouse Theory" have a concern about "thinking" something as opposed to establishing it in a scientifically convincing manner.
Personally I am merely a retired programmer with computer sciences & physical chemistry background, long long ago and in a galaxy far far away, as some might put it.
For me the issue is not merely one of a proposed theory or a projection of possibilities for academic consideration. The issue has been made one having substantial political and global economic consequence out of political decisions based on belief in the validity of unproven models and the basis on which they are founded.
When world economies, national sovereignty and personal standard of living are at stake it behooves us to stand back and take a critical and closer look at concepts pushing for major political changes on the basis of the UN/IPCC global warming premises.
All sides of the issue need to presented and evaluated, there is scientific opinion other than that of the IPCC, their modelers and enviro-proponents in this. Thus far the counterpoint has been virtually drowned out by IPCC proponents. It is time for experimental verification and a full and open evaluation of the IPCC's GCMs which thus far has not be forth coming.
From a conservative view I see a strong and substantive dissent to the storyline projections and models from which they have been derived. Frankly, the dissent's objections are fully warranted as far as my abilities to determine such is concerned. I am all too familiar with physical modeling to be snookered in by the IPCC's variety upon which the global warming assessments rest. Such models may be wonderful tools for learning, but like an rms curve fit of a polynomial to a dataset. They cannot be relied upon the beyond the dataset they mimic, they make great interpolators and unreliable predictors.
The dissent's objections, at the least, deserve a full and open scientific hearing and debate, not the blowoff I have seen come from too many quarters with a finger in the political and money pots. It is that latter the concerns me deeply, and raises many red flags when I see the dissenting opinion virtually washed out in a deluge of media blather on global warming.
I'll continue to go along with these folks, until there is a clear and convincing demonstration of the validity the IPCC's Global Warming bandwagon. That clear and convincing demonstration answering the counterpoints has yet to surface, and mere academic creditials bolstering yet more words in not going to do it.
ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING PETITION PROJECT:
During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
***
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.
Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified.
And what did they sign?
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
You have claimed I take a minority view:
"Again, you are taking a minority view."
I would submit there has been a majority view that has be silenced for all practical purposes by endangerment of funding and career when one is too vocal in their dissent touching environmental topics in academic circles today.
Glacier Mass Balance Trends: Up or Down?
Reference
Braithwaite, R.J. 2002. Glacier mass balance: the first 50 years of international monitoring. Progress in Physical Geography 26: 76-95.
What was done
The author reviewed and analyzed mass balance measurements of 246 glaciers from around the world that were made between 1946 and 1995.
What was learned
Braithwaite's analysis reveals "there are several regions with highly negative mass balances in agreement with a public perception of 'the glaciers are melting,' but there are also regions with positive balances." Within Europe, for example, he notes that "Alpine glaciers are generally shrinking, Scandinavian glaciers are growing, and glaciers in the Caucasus are close to equilibrium for 1980-95." And when results for the whole world are combined for this most recent period of time, Braithwaite notes "there is no obvious common or global trend of increasing glacier melt in recent years."
What it means
"From the results of modeling," Braithwaite writes, "it seems almost certain that higher air temperatures, if they occur, will lead to increasingly negative mass balances." In terms of a global glacier mass balance trend over the period 1980-95, however, none is apparent. Hence, one is left to wonder whether (a) the modeling results are wrong, (b) there has been no global warming over the last two decades of the 20th century, or (c) a and b are both correct.