First, let me make sure that the people reading this comment understand that I have a PhD in Physical Chemistry (a multidisciplinary science that encompasses Physics and Chemistry – both critical to any kind of modeling), have done a wide variety of mathematical modeling (including climate modeling) for many years and fully understand the accomplishments and failures that are associated with this field of endeavor.
Recent events have shown that the more we explore our Climatic System, the more we find we don’t understand it. The Physical and Chemical processes are incredibly complex, not well represented in current models (indeed some are not included at all) and are difficult, if not impossible, to describe using existing computational and mathematical capabilities.
Every so called "fact" in the referenced article has been debunked on numerous occasions and quite frankly, many of us are getting tired of the alarmists crying "wolf" just to frighten the public and gather attention to themselves.
Measurement of temperature data in the Troposphere is a joke. The climate alarmists (like Jim Hansen of NASA) refuse to divulge their methods for accounting for variability in the placement of temperature measurement instruments – indeed, in their data; Canada has been eliminated from the Earth!
Satellite data, which is much more reliable, and certainly less subject to bias than the data of Hansen et al, directly refutes the claims in the Editorial.
These so-call "scientists" are only interested in one thing. They want to frighten the public into providing the government a basis to give them more money to produce more junk science.
These people are not scientists. They are religious zealots who worship the government and the planet.
They have no understanding of how to perform fact base, analytical, unbiased exploration of scientific phenomena.
There is no difference between these people and the Catholic Church in the 15th century which tried to destroy Galileo because he had the temerity to disagree with their religious based, "peer reviewed", "consensus" view of the universe.
"Peer review" is only useful if a wide variety of people with differing opinions and backgrounds on the work being review are utilized – especially work such as this which is so complex and its wide ranging effects (both physical and political) must be carefully examined in a balanced, cogent fashion. If "peers" are constrained to be sycophants of the originators of the work at hand, you will never get an objective, rational analysis, review and questioning of the ‘science’.
Finally, the claim that a "consensus" of ‘scientists’ implies that the work must be ‘correct’ is just laughable. I’m sure that Hitler had a consensus of ‘scientists’ in Germany that the extinction of the Jews would lead to the purification of the human race.
Any scientific ‘consensus’ used to bludgeon the scientific community to accept a particular point of view is an ABOMNIATION and should be viewed with contempt and disdain. Again I point to Galileo as a brilliant human who, because his views did not fit into the "consensus" of ‘scientists’ and did not pass "peer review", was responsible for his eventual destruction and death by the Catholic Church – a religion just like Global Warming.
Do not let these people frighten you with falsified or manipulated data and climate models that are incomplete and flawed. Let your common sense be your guide and ask yourself, how many times has the weatherman/woman actually predicted the correct temperature (to within 1 degree or less) over a period of 1,3,10 days? If you look, you’ll find the occurrences have been few and far in between and probably could have been better predicted using a random number generator.