What I do not post

“A key point is that the system will always tend towards a state in which the amount of energy coming in, matches the amount going out into space, and that this state depends mostly on the boundary conditions.”
Would it be more appropriate to say this state determines the boundary conditions?
Energy in equals energy out is a scientific tautology.
The boundary conditions are implicit in the setup.
Time and size are important constraints given that humans live such very short lives compared to most of the time involved in climate change features. We live near a vanishingly thin water envelope on the earth [the oceans] where a vanishingly small alteration in sun energy output could spell curtains for us.
The hubris in expecting a perfect climate [defined I guess as what we had when [us old white men included] were born] is great. The fear of change is great and equates, I guess, with a fear of death.
Where I appreciate the discussion here is when people are more open to the challenges that present in using the data available openly and honestly even when it hurts.
[Garfield on the fence pose].
The fact that


Marco says: June 5, 2018 at 9:44 am
“Since when is motivational reasoning “a good thing”?
Take for example.
Going into something with the explicit starting point something is right means that you almost *have to* find something to be right.
It is called Confirmation bias for a reason, bias perhaps. Not always a skeptic problem.
Surely this is not a good thing?
On the other hand being scientific ie skeptical means having an open mind, not a bias to finding something negative. Could I adjust the sentence to start with an if to ease your concern and make the meaning clear, though “on the other hand” would seem to imply this anyway.
If ” On the other hand, if you find a mistake, or are able to question something they’ve done, then you potentially have ammunition if your goal is to undermine their results. This could be true, even if the consequences of this issue is negligible.”
Surely this is a good thing?

“In which case why mention the 97% unless it was just your usual trolling?”
So, in expert opinion there exists a 3% chance of being wrong.
No certainty then.
It is hard enough to put up arguments, sensibly, without anything that disagrees with your world view point being accused of being trolling. Why don’t you give me a break and try to work on convincing me with sensible arguments instead. I am trying to engage, admittedly it annoys you and I am sorry about that but discuss the arguments, not diss the person.
“angech wrote “I did not say it, JC, I found it. Argue your point with Best Schools, not me. And I acknowledged, did you miss it that JC was not a skeptic, yet.
How many times has she published articles on her blog questioning whether the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic? How many times has she commented to agree that we know it is predominantly anthropogenic in origin? How many times has she rejected the mass balance argument, which shows that the natural carbon cycle is a net carbon sink and hence is opposing the rise and not causing it.”
JCH said June 6, 2018 at 3:08 pm
“Two of them clearly are not skeptics: JC and LB. Even Lindzen, if you read the transcript of the physics society roundtable, is a complete dud as a skeptic.”
So your view on JC as a skeptic is not shared by JCH, JC herself, WUWT [she was listed as a lukewarmer on the old site] or the skeptic community as a whole.
Like me, she has acknowledged the warming effect of CO2. Did you miss that? The fact that she has raised and raises questions is Skepticism, not denial.
A perfectly legal, temperate approach to science which you should embrace and answer.