The IPCC’s un-physical Radiative Forcing (RF) methodology is at the heart of CAGW’s “evidence”. This is the “IPCC science” that the NZ ETS is based on.

AGW proponents cannot think of an alternative climate forcing agent to CO2 so by default they tout CO2 as the culprit.

ACO2 RF datasets (guesses up to 2100) are then used to initialize the models for simulation runs.

Unfortunately for the Warmists, ACO2 forcing is unable to produce the requisite warming so positive cloud feedbacks must be introduced to the models, hence 3C warming by 2100.

Fortunately for the skeptics, the IPCC’s RF methodology is coming back to bite them from two different directions.

First: super-parameterization studies (a cloud resolving model instead of static parameters) are producing negative feedbacks from clouds.

Second: Spencer-Braswell (2010) questions the diagnosis of radiative feedbacks and as Spencer puts it, “this paper puts meat on the central claim of my most recent book: that climate researchers have mixed up cause and effect when observing cloud and temperature changes. As a result, the climate system has given the illusion of positive cloud feedback.”

Anyone wanting to learn more about how forcings and clouds are implemented in the IPCC ar4 models in respect to the above and what to look for in the ar5 versions can spare themselves a great deal of time and effort by following the comments at the bottom of this post:

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/head-of-australian-science-academy-issues-decree-from-pagan-chieftans-of-science/#comments