I'm not sure where that would have fit. I've posted the standard radiative forcing diagram many times, and I acknowledge what the uncertainties could mean.
There'd still have to be more negative feedbacks, as yet unidentified, to add up to negative forcing. And its currently warming, so the "balance sheet" ought to be positive at this point in time. That doesn't mean further warming couldn't cause sufficient cloud cover change to reverse it. Research is ongoing on that, isn't it?
You refuse to acknowledge that the temperature data is being manipulated by the IPCC contributors to the point that it is dishonest.
All the temperature data? Modern or paleo? Every IPCC contributor involved with temperature data? Most of them? No, I won't acknowledge that, it's ridiculous. I'll acknowledge that there are flaws, sometimes significant, in some studies. I will further acknowledge that skeptics have overexploited and overemphasized these flaws for their own ends. I will also acknowledge that the skeptics rarely acknowledge when flawed studies have been supplanted by more recent, better, and more definitive results.
Deliberate dishonesty has to be definitively proven. I won't acknowledge such until it is.
You won’t acknowledge that the only place that major “global warming” exists, and I mean their 5+F forecasts, is in the completely unreliable GCMs, which have no, and I mean NO, track record of success in reality.
I acknowledge, as would anyone following along, that the GCMs are modified to generate the full range of scenarios, and that as I stated before, the high end scenarios are unlikely.
As for no track record of success:
Climate models and their evaluation
FAQ 8.1 and the figure included is a nice summary.
I agree I expand the set of important scenarios to include those where CO2 might add some temp, but where the effects of that are benign or even beneficial.
My interpretation of current trends is that the globe is past the point of benign or beneficial, particularly when consideration of the rate of change is included in the evaluation.
The alarmists are very like a surgeon suggesting that you have some part of your body removed “just in case” it might be a problem later on, even though there is no strong reason to believe there will ever be a problem
I disagree (and I also already used a medical analogy in a different post). Your case is as if the body part was asymptomatic. More accurately, there are symptoms, but their potential severity is unclear, as is the course of treatment.
The difference is that I will include as possibilities that the bureaucratic IPCC policymakers have it all wrong, and that they ignore the much higher costs (economic, opportunity cost, technology, beneficial side effects, etc.) by their excessive focus on the disaster scenerios.
You have every right to do so. I in turn have the right to maintain that the IPCC has got it basically right, and that further warming at the current rate or an accelerated rate has very little up-side.
I'll give you a quick bottom line. I believe it's probably going to warm at least 2.5 C this century. I think summer Arctic ice will be absent by 2025. I believe that many countries/regions which rely on glacial runoff as their primary water supply will be facing significant water shortages by 2040, some areas sooner. I believe that the ongoing Australian drought is a harbinger of things to come for other central continent agricultural areas. I believe that by 2020, there will have been at least one massive, unprecedented, killer heat wave in the United States corresponding to one or two unprecedentedly warm summers, worse than the 1936 event.
Sorry for not being balanced because I believe those things will happen.