“climate change delivered by the postmanâ€

True about the drugs, but it does point out the need to continually question the status quo.

 

And "Big Medicine", which has it's own dirty laundry.

 

I understand Schwartz presents a "simplified" view, but given the model uncertainties relative to aerosols and water vapor, I'm not sure the models, although more complex, are necessarily any more accurate. Certainly, as the tropospheric data indicates, the Schwartz estimate is more in the ballpark with reality than any of the IPCC model best estimates. And he is not the only one that is arguing for a CO2 climate sensitivity in this range. Regardless, I'll check your (and Scott's) links.

As for 1998, why would you impart less importance to the step -- which arguably shows more impact -- than what you would give to the remaining, relatively minor background warming?