JC comment: This essay resonated with me, since I am struggling to understand why climate science doesn’t seem to me to be working so well. Apart from the politicization of climate science, which has torqued the science in unfortunate ways, I have an (unformulated) sense that we are missing something in the way we are approaching this very complex scientific problem.
================================================
You are absolutely right, Judith. I can tell you what it is: asking cardinal questions. I’ll give you one example. When my attention was drawn to the “global warming” and evil CO2 by the press not so long ago, I very soon asked myself an important question: what about experiments? So it took me like 2 hours to find this on the internet: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html .
What you see in this article, Judith, is pure science called physics. No statistics, no speculations, just one clean experiment. Now you know the truth: the back radiation can not cause any significant warming.
I understand, that it might be painful to realise, that this has been known since 1909 after the “greenhouse” hypothesis had already existed for 50 years.
It would be quite natural, if you wished to further elaborate the issue of the Wood’s experiment on your blog. If the CO2 and thus the mankind have an alibi, why ignore it?