Stratospheric Water Vapor is a Global Warming Wild Card [since when does settled science include "wild cards?"]

A 10 percent drop in water vapor ten miles above Earth’s surface has had a big impact on global warming, say researchers in a study published online January 28 in the journal Science. The findings might help explain why global surface temperatures have not risen as fast in the last ten years as they did in the 1980s and 1990s.

Global warming: Can skeptics avoid previous mistakes?

There are large areas [like what, specifically?] of climate science that don't have holes to pick in them. Those areas will require a policy response. To be clear, doing nothing is a policy. If if it is to be your policy, then make it a conscious and clear decision. But if that is not your policy, bring something to the party.

How Climategate boss broke rules by hiding key data

Conservative MEP Roger Helmer, who sits on the EU Parliament’s climate change committee, said the Information Commissioner’s ruling meant Professor Jones must resign.

“This ruling completely undermines his position as head of the unit,” he said. “Science is about open inquiry and challenge. If he conspired with others to hide data it begs a lot of questions. He should resign.”

Richard North, an expert on climate change research, said: “Professor Jones is clearly motivated by the need to attract funding for his unit. If the unit has been set up to find global warming, releasing data showing that there isn’t will be the death knell for it.

Climate Science Leader Rajendra Pachauri Confronts the Critics -- Bagla 327 (5965): 510 Data Supplement - Extended Interview -- Science

Q: Has all that has happened this winter dented the credibility of IPCC?

R.K.P.: I don't think the credibility of the IPCC can be dented. If the IPCC wasn't there, why would anyone be worried about climate change? ...
Q: There is a view which feels that you knew about the glacier melting and of your claims at IPCC melting away before Copenhagen. I pointed it out to you in several e-mails, several discussions, yet you decided to overlook it. Was that so that you did not want to destabilize what was happening in Copenhagen?

R.K.P.: Not at all, not at all. As it happens, we were all terribly preoccupied with a lot of events. We were working round the clock with several things that had to be done in Copenhagen. It was only when the story broke, I think in December, we decided to, well, early this month--as a matter of fact, I can give you the exact dates--early in January that we decided to go into it and we moved very fast. And within 3 or 4 days, we were able to come up with a clear and a very honest and objective assessment of what had happened. So I think this presumption on your part or on the part of any others is totally wrong. We are certainly never--and I can say this categorically--ever going to do anything other than what is truthful and what upholds the veracity of science.