Climategate, another Story that won't Go Away

[IanC]

the press has started to pick up on Wahl's admission that he deleted emails in response to Mann and Jones' request. hahaha the blood is in the water!

As background, Phil Jones in the United Kingdom asked Mann, now at Penn State, by email to delete records being sought under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act, and to get a colleague to do so as well:

Mike:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment — minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

“Gene” is Eugene Wahl, who now works for the federal government.

Mann’s terse reply included in pertinent part:

I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP

Now, from Penn State’s supposed inquiry and exoneration of Michael Mann:

Allegation 2: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

Finding 2. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones. Dr. Mann has stated that he did not delete emails in response to Dr. Jones’ request. Further, Dr. Mann produced upon request a full archive of his emails in and around the time of the preparation of AR4. The archive contained e-mails related to AR4.

If the above excerpt accurately reflects Mann’s testimony, both Mann’s “answer” and his peers’ acceptance of it ought to raise red flags. Penn State asked Mann and only Mann if he destroyed records or was indirectly involved in destroying records. Mann said only that he did not destroy records. And that did it. Even though Phil Jones asked Mann to instruct Wahl to do so as well.

Allow me to translate this in relevant part:

PSU: This is potentially very grave. We must know: Did you do A or B?

Mann: I did not do A.

PSU: Ah. There we go. It appears there is no evidence he did A or B.

Close enough for academia, I suppose. But spare us the “cleared” tag and the claim to have conducted an inquiry.



Read more: Penn State whitewashed ClimateGate | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

and the Wahl statement to the NOAA Inspector General

From Capitol Hill come excerpted notes from the interview transcript between the NOAA Inspector General and Eugene Wahl. I am advised that it’s not a continuous chain, with some back and forth between the paragraphs excluded. I am advised that the excluded sections, often lengthy, do not place the excerpts in any different light than reading them as presented below.

Neither the Muir Russell nor Oxburgh “inquiries” took transcripts despite requests from the UK Parliamentary COmmittee to do so.

Q. Did you ever receive a request by either Michael Mann or any others to delete any emails?
A. I did receive that email. That’s the last one on your list here. I did receive that.
Q. So, how did you actually come about receiving that? Did you actually just — he just forward the — Michael Mann — and it was Michael Mann I guess?
A. Yes

Q. — That you received the email from?
A. Correct …

A. To my knowledge, I just received a forward from him.
Q. And what were the actions that you took?
A. Well, to the best of my recollection, I did delete the emails.
Q. So, did you find the request unusual, that they were — that the request — that you were being requested to delete such emails?
A. Well, I had never received one like it. In that sense, it was unusual.
Q. I guess if the exchange of comments and your review was appropriate, I guess what I’m just trying to understand why you’d be ask to delete the emails after the fact, at the time that they’re — it appears that the CRU is receiving FOIA requests
A. Yeah. I had no knowledge of anything like that. But that’s what they were — where they were coming from. And so, you’d have to ask Keith Briffa that. I don’t know what was in his mind.

my oh my. poor Old Rocks will be disillusioned when he finds out that he was lied to, that the investigations really were just whitewashes after all.

 

[IanC]

I wonder if Mann did try to delete his emails but when things got dicey he managed to retrieve them off the server? this is not going away anytime soon. plausible deniability just about worked but the cat is out of the bag now.

 

[skookerasbil]

The k00ks try to trivialize this as if it is a toss it over your shoulder thing. It was the deathknell though..........exposed the scam completely. The brainwashed space crusaders like Rocks would consider such an investigation legit........but nobody else.

 

[IanC]

the problem with the inquiries is that they didnt want to find anything wrong. then the inquiries into the inquires tried to dig deeper but an hour long session doesnt give enough time to check into the fibs and misdirections of the climategate principals that had a prepared story to give themselves plausible deniability. within hours the skeptical side had ripped their story to shreds but by then it was too late, the one time shot was over. the only way to get to the truth is to strip away the lies one at a time, and you cant destroy the lie until it is actually said.

that said, the bloodhounds are on the trail and cracks are forming in the stonewall position that will soon breach the wall. now that Wahl has admitted deleting the emails others will be forced to produce their copies. then the shit will hit the fan.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. You lost, Ian. They didn't find anything wrong in any of the inquiries, and the denial dingbats ended up with egg on their face.

 

[IanC]

LOL. You lost, Ian. They didn't find anything wrong in any of the inquiries, and the denial dingbats ended up with egg on their face.

It is sad that you think that anything but science itself has lost in this whole debacle. I still can't figure you out. you profess a love of science yet you seem happy that so many of the scientists involved with climate science use distorted data and methods to produce studies that support predetermined views. and when those scientists get caught out in their lies you dont seem to consider it a stain on their integrity, or a doubt on the veracity of their work.

Why didnt Mann just put the decline on his graph like any real scientist would feel obligated to do? Why did Jones lie about the quality and sources of his data on UHI effects? Why did the Hockey team delete the emails showing the petty and underhanded dealings they had with AR4 and various climate journals to preserve the known-to-be-inaccurate hockey stick for the IPCC report? Over and over again these guys get tripped up and caught out for gaming the system and reporting studies that they know are not the best representations of the facts as we know them but you are always happy when they 'get off on a technicality'. you are just as corrupt as they are.

 

[IanC]

Steve McIntyre is hammering at the door with FOI requests, as are others. and they keep getting closer and closer. climate science would have been much better off just confessing rather than fighting every step of the way. I hope someone makes a movie about the retired squash player who noticed a slight error and kept digging until the whole house of lies collapsed.

NOAA Disinformation

There are a couple of morals from this particular backstory.

Climate institutions (NOAA, the UK Met Office, CRU) have already made too many misleading and/or outright mendacious statements in refusing requests for documents. Thousands of readers are familiar with these events and are able to judge for themselves. Some commentators advise the climate community that they can restore confidence by telling new “stories”. However, before this tactic can be effective, climate institutions should ensure that any refusal of a request for information be scrupulously accurate, as the past practice of mendacious and/or misleading excuses has been pointlessly corrosive to the credibility of the institutions and the broader community.

NOAA’s recent statement that “all” the emails are in the “public domain” is one more incident. They aren’t. Without the attachments, only part of the emails are in the public domain.

If pressed, I’m sure that their defence would be – well, we didn’t say that the “attachments” to the emails were in the “public domain”. However, the public has seen far too many examples of such unconvincing parsing. Climate institutions should stop such practices immediately.

In my opinion, if NOAA wants to say that the “all” of the emails are in the “public domain”, then they should ensure that “all” of the emails are in fact in the public domain, rather than adding to the inventory of untrue and/or misleading statements. In the case at hand, “all” of the email includes the attachments. Now that a NOAA scientist has spoken out on the matter, NOAA should require that the attachments be placed in the “public domain”.

Secondly, if the climate community wants to get the Climategate affair behind them, the best course of action for them is to voluntarily get any and all documents pertaining to the events on the public record, rather than contesting the production of each and every document. If a NOAA scientist is in possession of documents that have been destroyed by CRU scientists, NOAA should find out precisely what their employees have and voluntarily put it in the public domain.

In the case of withholding the Wahl and Ammann version that was supposed to be in the (destroyed) IPCC archive for the AR4 First Draft, it is beyond incomprehensible to me that NOAA and NCAR would permit their employees to oppose the delivery of this document under UK FOI. (I don’t know whether Wahl and Ammann got the consent of senior NOAA and NCAR officers before registering their opposition to the release of this document or whether they were free-lancing. Regardless, in my opinion, senior NOAA/NCAR officials should require Wahl and Ammann to withdraw such opposition. Needless to say, this presumes the truthfulness of the University of East Anglia’s statement that Wahl and Ammann had registered objections – and the truthfulness of their statement is not a given.)

In the present frayed circumstances, any rational manager would take the opposite approach – they would instruct employees Wahl and Ammann to rescind any objections at the University of East Anglia to the disclosure of documents under UK FOI, copying the UK Information Commissioner. Actually, any rational managers would do more than that – they would place the version that should have been in the (now destroyed) IPCC archive online themselves.

It amazes me how often climate institutions make self-defeating choices on this sort of matter. Perhaps they think that they can win such cases in front of Information Commissioners in the UK or US. But any such victories tend to be pyrrhic victories. Whatever decision is rendered by the UK Information Commissioner will simply generate more commentary down the road. In my opinion, such obstructions, especially when accompanied by untrue or misleading excuses, are far more corrosive to public trust in the institutions themselves than any conceivable benefit to the institutions achieved through the obstruction.

simply the latest in a long line of efforts to get to the bottom of the situation that spawned climategate.More NOAA Disinformation and an Appeal to the UK ICO « Climate Audit

 

[Trakar]

Steve McIntyre is hammering at the door with FOI requests, as are others. and they keep getting closer and closer. climate science would have been much better off just confessing rather than fighting every step of the way. I hope someone makes a movie about the retired squash player who noticed a slight error and kept digging until the whole house of lies collapsed.
...

Sounds like it could have been lifted nearly verbatium from any number of UFO, Kennedy Assasination, Illuminati, or 9/11 Truth conspiracy site on the internet,...wonder why that is?

 

[IanC]

Steve McIntyre is hammering at the door with FOI requests, as are others. and they keep getting closer and closer. climate science would have been much better off just confessing rather than fighting every step of the way. I hope someone makes a movie about the retired squash player who noticed a slight error and kept digging until the whole house of lies collapsed.
...

Sounds like it could have been lifted nearly verbatium from any number of UFO, Kennedy Assasination, Illuminati, or 9/11 Truth conspiracy site on the internet,...wonder why that is?

hahahaha, now you want to dismiss climategate as just a conspiracy theory?

from an article by G Stringer, an MP who was a member of the inquiries into the inquiries done by Oxburgh and Muir Russell-

Lord Oxburgh who was appointed to chair this panel, disappointed everybody. He explained that the Vice Chancellor was new and did not understand what he had promised. He soon made it clear that he would not reassess the science but he was just going to satisfy himself as to the integrity of the scientists. After a cosy chat with the Climatic Research Unit scientists he decided that they were decent chaps.

Interestingly however following a Freedom of Information Request notes taken by one of the panellists, Professor Kelly from the University of Cambridge, indicated that while there was no “blatant malpractice” it was impossible to show that the Climatic Research Unit scientists had not cherry picked their statistics.
He thought their methodology was “turning centuries of science on its head”. Oxburgh also quietly damned the climate team by saying “it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians”
...
The other review carried out by Sir Muir Russell, a Civil Servant responsible for overseeing the huge over expenditure of the Scottish Parliament building, had even greater resonance with Deer’s concern about the accused investigating themselves. His review was charged with looking at the e-mails themselves. One of the main charges against Professor Jones was that he deleted e-mails that would show he was up to no good scientifically.

In a situation that is almost beyond parody Muir Russell stated that he didn’t ask Jones whether he had deleted the e-mails because they would have had to interview Jones under caution. What was the solution then? The Vice Chancellor asked Jones whether he had deleted the e-mails. This rather negated the purpose of having an independent Inquiry when the only person to ask the crucial question was the Vice Chancellor who saw his prime responsibility to the good name of the University. The accused investigating themselves again.

The work of the research unit is central to the manmade global warming thesis. There are proposals to increase worldwide taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. The release of the unit’s e-mails from the and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny of the science by independent panels. This did not happen.
We now know that the work done at Climatic Research Unit barely qualified as science; they kept it secret to stop other scientists checking it; thus breaching one of the foundations of the scientific method.

Climate jiggery-pokery | News | Manchester Confidential

add this to the thorough investigation of Mann by Penn State, where they took his word that he did not directly or indirectly contribute to the deletion of emails even though Wahl immediately deleted his AR4 emails as soon as he got the (ahem) forwarded request from Mann. At least Penn actually talked to Mann, the english inquiries didnt even question Jones about trying to get rid of the incriminating emails.

conspiracy theory indeed! more like just conspiracy committed by some very powerful climate scientists.

 

[Old Rocks]

Isn't it terrible when real scientists do science, and disagree with the way you think thing ought to be? Why those fellows should be pilloried for stating the world is not as you would like it. Imagine, reporting on real conditions when you want to hear about unreal conditions.

Why don't you just demand that they stop that damned ice from melting, Ian?

 

[westwall]

Isn't it terrible when real scientists do science, and disagree with the way you think thing ought to be? Why those fellows should be pilloried for stating the world is not as you would like it. Imagine, reporting on real conditions when you want to hear about unreal conditions.

Why don't you just demand that they stop that damned ice from melting, Ian?

Who's that? It certainly isn't the AGW alarmists. They just plug a bunch of random numbers into a computer model and wave their hands. They havn't a clue how to do real science. I bet they couldn't even operate a simple mass spectrometer.

 

[edthecynic]

I wonder if Mann did try to delete his emails but when things got dicey he managed to retrieve them off the server?

Isn't it terrible when real scientists do science, and disagree with the way you think thing ought to be? Why those fellows should be pilloried for stating the world is not as you would like it. Imagine, reporting on real conditions when you want to hear about unreal conditions.

Why don't you just demand that they stop that damned ice from melting, Ian?

Who's that? It certainly isn't the AGW alarmists. They just plug a bunch of random numbers into a computer model and wave their hands. They havn't a clue how to do real science. I bet they couldn't even operate a simple mass spectrometer.

Why can't they just IMAGINE deleting and retrieving emails like fruitcake denier alarmists?

They should just use the opposite sign for correcting for diurnal satellite drift like denier "scientists," who have a clue how to do "real" fake science.

 

[westwall]

I wonder if Mann did try to delete his emails but when things got dicey he managed to retrieve them off the server?

Isn't it terrible when real scientists do science, and disagree with the way you think thing ought to be? Why those fellows should be pilloried for stating the world is not as you would like it. Imagine, reporting on real conditions when you want to hear about unreal conditions.

Why don't you just demand that they stop that damned ice from melting, Ian?

Who's that? It certainly isn't the AGW alarmists. They just plug a bunch of random numbers into a computer model and wave their hands. They havn't a clue how to do real science. I bet they couldn't even operate a simple mass spectrometer.

Why can't they just IMAGINE deleting and retrieving emails like fruitcake denier alarmists?

They should just use the opposite sign for correcting for diurnal satellite drift like denier "scientists," who have a clue how to do "real" fake science.

Dr. Muller is a warmist numbskull. Take your argument (such as it is) up with him. He's the one you should be worrying about now. He appears ethical and if he makes his material as transparent as he claims then all sides (at least the sceptical side) will be happy.

 

[Cuyo]

Isn't it terrible when real scientists do science, and disagree with the way you think thing ought to be? Why those fellows should be pilloried for stating the world is not as you would like it. Imagine, reporting on real conditions when you want to hear about unreal conditions.

Why don't you just demand that they stop that damned ice from melting, Ian?

Who's that? It certainly isn't the AGW alarmists. They just plug a bunch of random numbers into a computer model and wave their hands. They havn't a clue how to do real science. I bet they couldn't even operate a simple mass spectrometer.

What a freakin' nitwit you are, Westy. I've seen more intelligent things scribed on the inside of port-o-potties.

 

[westwall]

Isn't it terrible when real scientists do science, and disagree with the way you think thing ought to be? Why those fellows should be pilloried for stating the world is not as you would like it. Imagine, reporting on real conditions when you want to hear about unreal conditions.

Why don't you just demand that they stop that damned ice from melting, Ian?

Who's that? It certainly isn't the AGW alarmists. They just plug a bunch of random numbers into a computer model and wave their hands. They havn't a clue how to do real science. I bet they couldn't even operate a simple mass spectrometer.

What a freakin' nitwit you are, Westy. I've seen more intelligent things scribed on the inside of port-o-potties.

Ahhh yes, the ever popular reduction to personal insult, the last refuge of the incompetent liberal pseudo intellectual. You don't even do it well.

 

[Cuyo]

Who's that? It certainly isn't the AGW alarmists. They just plug a bunch of random numbers into a computer model and wave their hands. They havn't a clue how to do real science. I bet they couldn't even operate a simple mass spectrometer.

What a freakin' nitwit you are, Westy. I've seen more intelligent things scribed on the inside of port-o-potties.

Ahhh yes, the ever popular reduction to personal insult, the last refuge of the incompetent liberal pseudo intellectual. You don't even do it well.

There's no intelligent retort to climate change denial; The underlying premise is fundamentally unintelligent (and imho, childish). If decades of research and global consensus don't convince you, what makes me think I could?

You're answer? "Those scientists are stupid. They don't know anything about science."

 

[westwall]

What a freakin' nitwit you are, Westy. I've seen more intelligent things scribed on the inside of port-o-potties.

Ahhh yes, the ever popular reduction to personal insult, the last refuge of the incompetent liberal pseudo intellectual. You don't even do it well.

There's no intelligent retort to climate change denial; The underlying premise is fundamentally unintelligent (and imho, childish). If decades of research and global consensus don't convince you, what makes me think I could?

You're answer? "Those scientists are stupid. They don't know anything about science."

Decades of what research pray tell? Show me one avenue of research that is not tainted by the likes of the fools running the AGW show. Everything they have done is corrupted or don't you understand the implications of CLIMATEGATE? The underlying principle of scepticism (which is a basic underpinning of science in general BTW) is UNIFORMITARIANISM. I suggest you look up the principle and go to a University and talk to a geologist so they can describe it to you in a way that you can understand.

For climate alarmism to have any chance at being possible you must first be able to eliminate all possible natural causes of the observed phenomena and no climatologist has ever done that. Just because you choose to place your head in the sand and go "la la la la"
doesn't negate the fact that geologists all over the world collectively point to MANY times in the past where similar climactic conditions have existed, and all of them without the benefit of human influence.

 

[IanC]

Isn't it terrible when real scientists do science, and disagree with the way you think thing ought to be? Why those fellows should be pilloried for stating the world is not as you would like it. Imagine, reporting on real conditions when you want to hear about unreal conditions.

Why don't you just demand that they stop that damned ice from melting, Ian?

"There is no truth existing which I fear, or would wish unknown to the whole world." -Thomas Jefferson

a thought experiment: if the world was still in a pre-industrialized state would we be concerned about the small amount of warming that has happened since the Little Ice Age? would we be concerned about the ebb and flow of the glaciers and ice sheets? no, we would be pleased that we were in an optimum temperature range that makes it easier to support civilization. it would simply be a return to good conditions that existed in the Medieval Warm Period or Roman Optimum or the other warm periods that preceded those in this latest interglacial era.

OK but we are industrialized and CO2 has gone up. what is the proof that CO2 caused some or all of the warming? doubling CO2 theoretically should warm the planet by ~ 1C if no other factors change. but other factors do change, including evaporation. we do not understand the impact of the water cycle, or even if it is a positive or negative feedback. so we are left with circumstantial evidence. has the ~1C temp increase over the last 100+ years matched the increase in CO2? no, close to half of the warming came in the first half of the last century with little increase of CO2. did warming occur in the third quarter of last century when the CO2 was becoming noticable? no, temps went down and there were concerns about a coming Ice Age. what about the last quarter? yes! temps AND CO2 both went up and the world went into a frenzy over global warming! how about the last decade with even more CO2? no temp increases, no sea level increases, the climate models have been shown to be incorrect in both area and size of predictions. in the last 110 years the models have been on track with the data for only about 25 years. when do we start questioning the validity of the theory?



I cribbed this video from another thread. it shows how even intelligent, educated people will fall back on easy-to-understand explanations that jibe with their real world experiences when it comes to explaining things with more difficult-to-understand factors. everyone understands CO2 as a blanket or a greenhouse but few easily understand the water cycle as a heat pump to release latent heat above the clouds.

so basically what I am saying Old Rocks, is that I am not the one trying to twist real world conditions into something else. it is the alarmist wing of climate science that keeps putting out non sequiturs like the Pakistan flooding as proof of AGW, or worse, allowing the false story of the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 to be publicized with no dissent.

 

[edthecynic]

Isn't it terrible when real scientists do science, and disagree with the way you think thing ought to be? Why those fellows should be pilloried for stating the world is not as you would like it. Imagine, reporting on real conditions when you want to hear about unreal conditions.

Why don't you just demand that they stop that damned ice from melting, Ian?

everyone understands CO2 as a blanket or a greenhouse but few easily understand the water cycle as a heat pump to release latent heat above the clouds.

I took all the bullshit out of your post which left the above.

Adding up the Greenhouse Effect: Attributing the contributions | Climate Change

Finally, all of this further reinforces the importance of feedbacks on climate, and that the very popular claim of “water vapor being the most important greenhouse gas” is a bit misguided, even if it is the largest source of infrared absorption in the current atmosphere.
Removing all of the water vapor from the atmosphere (and not replenishing it) would trigger a snowball Earth as well, but the non-condensable greenhouse gases (those which don’t precipitate from the atmosphere under current Earthlike temperature and pressures) such as CO2 would still be able to support a surface temperature of about 10 K higher than it otherwise would be. If you remove the CO2 and other GHG’s however, then you’d also lose a substantial part of the water vapor and cloud longwave effects, resulting in a near collapse of the terrestrial greenhouse effect. A significant water vapor greenhouse effect would not be sustainable without the “skeleton” provided by the non-condensable greenhouse gases, although it is obviously a significant amplification factor, both for the total greenhouse effect and its change in the future. It’s thus like the “skin” on a human or animal which needs the skeleton to hold it up, but provides the extra form and protection that we need to survive. This forcing-feedback distinction also makes CO2 the fundamental driver of global climate change (at least insofar as alterations to the optical characteristics of the atmosphere are concerned). See for example, Richard Alley’s AGU talk which focuses on CO2 as the largest control knob of climate change over geologic timescales. The water vapor is just dragged along with the temperature change, but then substantially amplifies any forcing to help provide the full magnitude of the temperature fluctuations; this is also a reason cold climates tend to be much drier than warmer ones.
All of this is moreso academically interesting than anything. Obviously we don’t live in a world where we are plucking out CO2 all together and then adding water vapor, or having a world where you can have clouds without water vapor, etc…but it should help to put into context the primary (water vapor, clouds, CO2) and secondary factors to the greenhouse effect, and put into perspective the important distinction between a forcing and a feedback.

 

[edthecynic]

Isn't it terrible when real scientists do science, and disagree with the way you think thing ought to be? Why those fellows should be pilloried for stating the world is not as you would like it. Imagine, reporting on real conditions when you want to hear about unreal conditions.

Why don't you just demand that they stop that damned ice from melting, Ian?

everyone understands CO2 as a blanket or a greenhouse but few easily understand the water cycle as a heat pump to release latent heat above the clouds.

I took all the bullshit out of your post which left the above.

Adding up the Greenhouse Effect: Attributing the contributions | Climate Change

Finally, all of this further reinforces the importance of feedbacks on climate, and that the very popular claim of “water vapor being the most important greenhouse gas” is a bit misguided, even if it is the largest source of infrared absorption in the current atmosphere.
Removing all of the water vapor from the atmosphere (and not replenishing it) would trigger a snowball Earth as well, but the non-condensable greenhouse gases (those which don’t precipitate from the atmosphere under current Earthlike temperature and pressures) such as CO2 would still be able to support a surface temperature of about 10 K higher than it otherwise would be. If you remove the CO2 and other GHG’s however, then you’d also lose a substantial part of the water vapor and cloud longwave effects, resulting in a near collapse of the terrestrial greenhouse effect. A significant water vapor greenhouse effect would not be sustainable without the “skeleton” provided by the non-condensable greenhouse gases, although it is obviously a significant amplification factor, both for the total greenhouse effect and its change in the future. It’s thus like the “skin” on a human or animal which needs the skeleton to hold it up, but provides the extra form and protection that we need to survive. This forcing-feedback distinction also makes CO2 the fundamental driver of global climate change (at least insofar as alterations to the optical characteristics of the atmosphere are concerned). See for example, Richard Alley’s AGU talk which focuses on CO2 as the largest control knob of climate change over geologic timescales. The water vapor is just dragged along with the temperature change, but then substantially amplifies any forcing to help provide the full magnitude of the temperature fluctuations; this is also a reason cold climates tend to be much drier than warmer ones.
All of this is moreso academically interesting than anything. Obviously we don’t live in a world where we are plucking out CO2 all together and then adding water vapor, or having a world where you can have clouds without water vapor, etc…but it should help to put into context the primary (water vapor, clouds, CO2) and secondary factors to the greenhouse effect, and put into perspective the important distinction between a forcing and a feedback.

Wow! It looks like this post shut the deniers up!