Girma, you write “You know IPCC has got wrong its 0.2 deg C per decade warming prediction.”
Absolutely correct. But please dont try and derail the point I am trying to make. Of course the IPCC got it wrong. Anyone who does not START with the observed measured data, invariably gets it wrong. That is the issue I am addressing.
Whether Bartemis is right or wrong is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make. Bartemis starts with the data. That is the issue. Whether his interpretation of the data is correct, I dont know. But I applaud someone discussing CAGW STARTING with the data. I said the same thing to Roy Spencer when he tried to use the ERBE/CERES data to measure the amount of feedback. I have no real idea whether he made a good job, but he STARTED with the data.
And that is my issue with the proponents of CAGW. They start with dubious physics and non-validated models, and then when any data tends to show they are wrong, they neglect, ignore, deny, etc etc the data in order to support the unsupportable. That there is proper physics to go from a change in forcing to a change in surface temperature.