Elsevier Charlton was not talking about AGW but his observations fit many aspects of the warmists' version of climate science. Taboos, appeals to authority and distortion of data to support confirmation bias simply abound in the annals of CO2 caused global warming. Two quotes from R.P. Feynman- The main problem (as I see it) with AGW is that it does not describe reality by its main thesis, that small thermal increases caused by manmade CO2 set off a cascade of positive feedbacks which lead to large increases of temperature and eventual catastrophy. Computer models are their only 'proof', and the computer models totally fail at projecting where and how the warming is taking place. The imput for the models are loose approximations for the factors that they do consider, and ignorance (ignoring) of the factors that are too complex or poorly understood. Even their choice of considering water vapour and clouds as a positive feedback (only) is ridiculous at its face because water has been mediating force that has kept the earth at moderate temperatures since it formed! More study needs to be done on the other climate influences, such as the solar impact, cloud systems, etc. And it should be done as separate factors, not as peripheral to CO2. Hell, even the crazy hungarian Miskolczi has a better theory than the IPCC gang- DailyTech - Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong" At least he can derive temperatures from first principles rather than needing to constantly recalibrate the input data to give a reasonable answer like they have to do with computer climate models.