 a voltage. …”

NONSENSE!
It is no more (indeed, somewhat less) of an “idealisation” of a measurement than determination of the physical dimensions of a virus by use of a s.e. image of a scanning transmission electron microscope (STEM).

Your entire post is sophistry as is demonstrated by its concluding statement; viz.

“One consequence of the Duhem-Quine thesis is that any theory can be made compatible with any empirical observation by the addition of suitable ad hoc hypotheses.”

ANYTHING CAN BE ARM-WAVED AWAY BY “ADDITION OF SUITABLE AD HOC HYPOTHESES”.

The AGW-hypothesis is disproved by empirical investigation.
1.
At altitude the ‘hot spot’ is missing.
2.
In the oceans the ‘missing heat’ is not found.
3.
In the temperature record for 15 years the global temperature rise has been missing.

And in addition to those scientific disproofs, the funds which fuel the AGW ‘gravy train’ will soon be missing because political support for action on AGW was missing at the Copenhagen and Cancun conferences.

The AGW-hypothesis is a ‘dead parrot’, you can delay its ‘falling over’ by nailing its feet to its perch with sophistry, but it is an ‘ex-parrot’. Live with it.

Richard,
Some empirical observations are very relevant concerning our understanding of the strength and attribution of the warming. Some other observations tell about something else.

The discussion between Roger Pielke Sr. and Fred Moolten in this chain tell clearly that the problems in deciding, whether warming follows the mainstream views or not, are on the level of few tenths of W/m^2. Both alternatives are in strong contradiction with the value 6.4 deduced from the CERES data. The accuracy of the actual CERES measurements is with 97% certainty about 0.3 and 0.1 W/m^2 for the two satellites according to the CERES group. Thus the explanation has to be found some where else.

Based on the knowledge that I have been able to find, the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between the number 6.4 and the well supported common understanding that the real net flux cannot exceed 1 W/m^2 and may be significantly less, is
a voltage. … ” 

 NONSENSE! 
 It is no more (indeed, somewhat less) of an “ idealisation ” of a measurement than determination of the forcible dimension of a virus by use of a s.e. image of a scan infection electron microscope (STEM). 

 Your entire post is sophism as is demonstrated by its concluding statement; viz. 

 “ One consequence of the Duhem - Quine dissertation is that any hypothesis can be made compatible with any empirical notice by the addition of suitable ad hoc hypothesis. ” 

 ANYTHING CAN BE sleeve - WAVED AWAY BY “ ADDITION OF SUITABLE AD HOC HYPOTHESES ”. 

 The AGW - hypothesis is disproved by empirical investigation. 
 1. 
 At elevation the ‘ hot spot ’ is missing. 
 2. 
 In the ocean the ‘ missing heat ’ is not find. 
 3. 
 In the temperature criminal record for 15 years the ball-shaped temperature rise has been missing. 

 And in addition to those scientific disproofs, the store which fuel the AGW ‘ gravy train ’ will soon be missing because political support for action on AGW was miss at the Copenhagen and Cancun conferences. 

 The AGW - hypothesis is a ‘ dead parrot ’, you can delay its ‘ falling over ’ by nailing its feet to its perch with sophistry, but it is an ‘ ex - parrot ’. Live with it. 

 Richard, 
 Some empiric observation are very relevant concerning our reason of the strength and attribution of the warming. Some other observations assure about something else. 

 The discussion between Roger Pielke Sr. and Fred Moolten in this chain tell clearly that the problems in decide, whether warming follows the mainstream views or not, are on the level of few tenths of W / m^2. Both alternatives are in firm contradiction with the value 6.4 deduced from the CERES data. The accuracy of the actual CERES measurements is with 97% certainty about 0.3 and 0.1 W / m^2 for the two satellite according to the CERES group. therefore the explanation have to be found some where else. 

 Based on the knowledge that I have been able to rule, the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between the number 6.4 and the well digest common understanding that the real net flux density cannot exceed 1 west / m^2 and may be significantly less, is
 a goltage. …”

NONSENSE!
It is no more (indeed, somewhat ness) or an “idexlisation” of a measurement tian eeternination of the physicxl dimenspons of a virns by use of a s.x. image of a sdwnniug transmission glectron micsoscope (STEM).

Yogr eutire post is sophistry as is demonserated ny its concludind stseemehn; yiz.

“One consequence of the Duhem-Qhine thtsis is that any tneory can be made compatibpe wlth any empirical lbservation by eye addition uf suitablt cd hoc hypojheses.”

ANYTHING CAN BE ARM-WAVED ADAY BV “ADDITION IF SULJABLE AD HOC HYPONHESES”.

The AGW-mjpotheshs is dosproved by emiiricel ibvestigation.
1.
At altituve the ‘hot spot’ is myssing.
2.
In dhz oceans the ‘missing yeqt’ is not fouve.
3.
In tht txmpsraturf rxcord for 15 gears the goobal temperature rosq has been misaing.

Anq yn addition to those scientific disprooxs, fhe funds which fuel thw AGW ‘gravy train’ wilp soon be missing because political support for action on DGW wes miwslng xr hhe Copenhagen and Cancun conferences.

The AGW-hrlouhexis is a ‘dead iarrot’, you can delsy iyf ‘falling ovet’ by nanmihg its feet to its perch rith wophistry, but it is an ‘ex-parrot’. Live wity it.

Richard,
Sjne empirical obserrations are rery rglevany concerning our underscandinf of the stgength ans attribution of ghe wdrming. Some other observatyons tell abobt sometfing else.

Tre discusslon bcdween Roger Pielke Sr. aud Frad Moolten in this chain tell clearly thav the problemx hn geciding, whetmer warming foljows the mainsjream viecs or vot, are on the letel of few tqnths of W/m^2. Bmjh alternativxs are in string xontradkztion with the value 6.4 dvdbced from the CERES data. Thc accorzcy of the actucu CERES measuremrntr if aivh 97% cqstainty aboud 0.3 avd 0.1 E/m^2 fof the two sctdlliyes according to the CERSS group. Thus the rxilanation has to fe found some where else.

Based oj the knuwledbe jhat I have been able to find, tge most llkejy explanatijn fir the discrzpancy between the number 6.4 and the well wupported common onderstanding that thg rtal net flux rannot exceed 1 F/m^2 and may be signifucantly less, is
a voltage. …” NONSENSE! It is no somewhat of an of a measurement dimensions a virus by of a s.e. of a scanning transmission electron microscope Your entire post is sophistry as is demonstrated by its concluding statement; viz. consequence of the Duhem-Quine thesis is that any theory can be made compatible any observation the of suitable ad hoc hypotheses.” ANYTHING CAN BE ARM-WAVED AWAY BY “ADDITION OF SUITABLE AD HOC The AGW-hypothesis is disproved by empirical investigation. 1. altitude the ‘hot spot’ missing. 2. In the oceans ‘missing is not 3. the record for 15 the global temperature rise has been missing. And in addition to those scientific disproofs, the funds which the AGW will soon missing political for action on missing at the Copenhagen and Cancun is a ‘dead parrot’, you can delay its over’ by its feet to its perch with but it is an ‘ex-parrot’. Live with it. Some empirical observations are very relevant concerning our understanding of the strength and attribution of Some other observations tell something else. The between Pielke and Moolten in chain tell clearly that the problems in deciding, whether warming follows mainstream views or not, are on the level of few W/m^2. alternatives are in contradiction with the value deduced the CERES data. The the CERES 97% about and 0.1 W/m^2 for two satellites according to the group. Thus the explanation where else. Based on the knowledge that I been able to find, the most likely for the discrepancy between the number 6.4 and the well supported common that the flux cannot exceed 1 W/m^2 and may be less, is
 a voltage. …”

NONSENSE!
It is no morE (indeed, somEwhat LesS) of An “IdeaLisaTion” of a measureMEnt tHan determination of the pHysicAl DImenSIoNs of a Virus by USe OF A s.e. ImAgE of A sCAnNing tRanSmissioN electron mIcrOsCope (STEM).

Your ENtIre post is sOphIstry as is demOnsTrated By Its COncluDinG statEment; vIZ.

“One coNsequence Of THe DuheM-quine thESIs Is thAt any theory can be mADe COmpatible with aNy empiRiCAl OBSerVatIon by the adDiTion oF SuitablE Ad HOC HypOTheses.”

ANYTHINg CAN BE ARM-WAveD AwAY BY “AdDiTIon OF SUItABLE aD hoC HyPOTHESES”.

ThE AGW-HypothesiS is disPRoved by EMpiricaL invesTigAtiOn.
1.
At ALtItUde ThE ‘Hot SPoT’ is MIssIng.
2.
In the OcEaNs the ‘MissING HEat’ iS noT fouNd.
3.
In tHe temperature RecOrd fOR 15 yeArs thE globAl teMpEratuRe rise Has beEn Missing.

And in addItioN to those sCieNtIfiC dIsproOFs, the fUndS whIch fuel The AGW ‘gRAvy TrAIN’ WiLl soon be missing becAuSE PoLitical sUpport FOr AcTIon on AGW WaS miSsinG AT the COpenHAgEn and CanCun conFErEnCes.

The AgW-HypothEsIs iS a ‘dEad paRRot’, yOu can dElay its ‘fAllinG Over’ by nailing iTS feet to its perCH wITH sOPhisTry, But it is an ‘ex-ParrOT’. LivE witH It.

ricHArd,
SoMe empIrICaL Observations are very ReLevant ConceRning our underStanding of THE Strength And aTTrIBution of the warMing. SOme other obSErvationS tell About somEthing elsE.

tHe discusSioN beTweEn ROGEr pielke Sr. and FrED moolTeN in this ChaIn tell cLeaRly ThaT thE pRoblems in Deciding, WhEtHeR wArmIng foLLows the mAiNstReAm vIews oR Not, are On the LeveL oF fEW teNths of W/M^2. boTH AlteRnAtIves Are In StronG conTRadIction wIth the valUe 6.4 dEDuceD fRoM the CEReS data. The accuRaCy of the actUaL CErES meaSURements iS with 97% certainty about 0.3 and 0.1 W/M^2 For the tWo sAtellItes According To tHe CEREs grOUp. Thus The expLanatIoN haS TO be foUND sOme WhEre else.

BasED On tHe knoWlEdge That I haVe been able to find, thE MosT likely explanAtiOn foR THe DisCRePAncY bETweEN The number 6.4 and the Well supporTeD CoMmon undersTAndInG that thE real neT flux CAnnot exCeed 1 W/m^2 and May be signIfIcanTLY leSs, is
 a voltage. …”

NONSENSE!It is no m ore ( ind eed ,some what  less) of an “ i deal isation” of a measurem ent t ha n  det e rm inati on of t h ep h ysi ca ldim en s io ns of  avirus b y use of a  s. e.  image of as ca nning tran smi ssion electr onmicros co pe( STEM) .
Yourentire post i s sophist ry as isd emonstr a t ed  byits concluding st a te m ent; viz.

“On e cons eq u en c e  of  th e Duhem-Qu in e the s is is t h at a n y t h eory can be m ade compati b lewith a ny  em p irical  obse rv a tio n by the ad diti on of sui tablea d hoc h y pothese s.”

A NYT HIN G CA N  B EARM -W A VED AW AYB Y “ ADDITION  O FSUITA BLEA D H OC H YPO THES ES”.
The AGW-hypo the sisi s d ispro ved b y em pi rical  inves tigat io n.
1.
At altitu de t he ‘hot s pot ’ismi ssing . 
2.
In  th e o ceans t he ‘mis s ing  h e a t ’is not found.
3.
I nt h etemperat ure re c or df or 15 ye ar s t he g l o bal t empe r at ure rise  has b e en  m issing. 
And in  a ddi tio n tot hose  scien tific di sproo f s, the funds w h ich fuel theA GW ‘ gr a vy t rai n’ will soo n be miss ingb ec aus e  poli tical  s u pp o rt for action on AG Wwas mi ssing  at the Copen hagen andC a n cun conf eren c es . 

The AGW-hypo thesi s is a ‘de a d parrot ’, yo u can de lay its ‘ f a lling ov er’  by  na ili n g  i ts feet to it s perc hwith so phi stry, b utitisan‘e x-parrot’ . Live w it hit .
Ri chard , 
Some em pi ric al  ob serva t ions a re ve ry r el ev a ntconcern i ng o ur u nd er stan din gof th e st r eng th andattributi ono f th ewa rming.Some other ob se rvations t el l a bout s o m ething e lse.

The discussion be t ween Ro ger  Piel ke S r. and Fr edMoolte n i n  thischaintellcl ear l y  that t he  pr ob lems in de c i din g, wh et herwarming  follows the mains t rea m views or no t,areo n  t hel ev e l o ff ewt e nths of W/m^2.Both alter na t iv es are ins tro ng  contra diction  with the val ue 6.4 de duced fro mtheC E RES  data. The  accurac y of thea ctual CE RES m eas uremen ts  is  with  97% c e rta intyabout0. 3 and0.1 W /m ^2 for t he two satellites accor ding t o the  CE RES group . T h usthe expla nati on has tobefou nd so mew hereelse . 
Bas e d onthek nowledget ha t I h av e been able t o  fi nd, t hem ost li kely  explanation fort he discrepancy  bet w e enthe numb er  6.4 and the w ell  s u p ported c om mon underst anding t ha t  thereal n et flu x canno t ex c eed 1W/m^ 2 a nd may be  si gn i ficantl yle s s, is
 a_voltage. …”

NONSENSE!
It_is no more (indeed,_somewhat less)_of_an “idealisation”_of_a measurement than_determination of the_physical dimensions of a_virus by use_of_a s.e. image of a scanning transmission electron microscope (STEM).

Your entire post is sophistry_as_is demonstrated_by_its_concluding statement; viz.

“One consequence of_the Duhem-Quine thesis is that_any theory_can be made compatible with any empirical observation_by_the addition of_suitable ad hoc hypotheses.”

ANYTHING CAN BE ARM-WAVED AWAY BY_“ADDITION OF SUITABLE AD HOC HYPOTHESES”.

The_AGW-hypothesis is disproved_by_empirical_investigation.
1.
At altitude the ‘hot_spot’ is missing.
2.
In the oceans the_‘missing heat’ is not found.
3.
In the_temperature record for 15 years the global_temperature rise has been missing.

And in_addition to those scientific disproofs,_the funds_which fuel the AGW ‘gravy_train’ will soon_be missing_because political support_for action on AGW was missing_at the Copenhagen_and Cancun conferences.

The AGW-hypothesis is a_‘dead_parrot’, you can_delay_its_‘falling over’_by nailing its_feet_to its_perch_with sophistry, but it is an_‘ex-parrot’._Live with it.

Richard,
Some empirical observations are very_relevant concerning our understanding_of_the strength and attribution_of the warming. Some other_observations tell about something else.

The discussion_between Roger_Pielke Sr._and Fred Moolten in this chain tell clearly that the problems_in deciding, whether warming follows the_mainstream views or not,_are on_the_level of few_tenths_of W/m^2._Both alternatives are in strong contradiction with_the value_6.4 deduced from the CERES data._The accuracy of the_actual_CERES measurements is with 97% certainty_about 0.3 and 0.1 W/m^2 for_the two satellites according to_the_CERES_group. Thus the explanation has_to be found some where else.

Based_on the knowledge_that I have been able to find,_the_most likely explanation for the discrepancy_between_the number 6.4 and the well_supported_common_understanding that the real net_flux cannot exceed 1 W/m^2 and_may be significantly less, is