debates on Cougarboard for a long time. You can do a board search and get an answer to your 2b. I don't want to retype it again.

I know the numbers, I deal with them every day. I also know the costs. I also know the war on coal intimately well too.

One thing you *could* do for me, though, that would interest me very much:

Find me a scientific journal that does a study on the Error Propagation rates, including hysteresis curves of the temperature measuring devices, used in the climate models, as well as the propagation rates of the assumptions used (including mathematic formulas, for review of course), used in these said models.

Excel spreadsheets and hockey stick graphs mean zero to me, when we are talking about predicting global temperature rises on the scope of a few degrees C over world-wide weather patterns over the course of decades, while not taking into account at LEAST the hysteresis curves of the measuring instruments, as well as their measuring locations (asphalt effect, etc). I don't believe the tolerances.

My personal opinion at this point is that these scientists are taking information in the "error" region of their models and interpolating it for their own gain (ie: grants, renown, job security, political power, etc.) I believe they could just as easily show a "model" showing climate steady. Or climate cooling (heck your graph above showed that some scientists INDEED still believe in a global cooling, are there models worse than the "warmists"?)

My BS-meter goes off every time I read one of these "peer reviewed" climatologist papers (and the science IS biased).

Show me the modeling assumptions, formulas, hysterises curves, and an error propagation tables. THAT is what interests me in this debate. I'm beyond anything else.

No hard feelings, I just want to make it clear that I'm bored of the debate and frankly don't want to address 2b until you address what I have above. That would at least be "new" reading for me.