FATS LIMBAUGH IS WRONG AGAIN

Today, a woman who claimed to be a geologist called in and here's part of the exchange:

RUSH: Well, at this point, I think these e-mails indicate they know their hypotheses are already ruled out because they're making things up.

CALLER: Exactly. Absolutely. And I have been saying that for some time ever since the data began to come in and we began to see that the last decade has shown cooling. Every hypothesis they have ever advanced has been ruled out by that finding.

RUSH: Right. And of course the sun has nothing to do with it. They also do not factor the sun at all. And they don't factor --

CALLER: No.

RUSH: -- they don't factor precipitation.

CALLER: No. And there are glacial cycles and Milankovitch cycles, there are lots of other possibilities, none of which they have ever attempted to address and try to rule out, which is what they have to do in order for it to be called science.

You can find the 2007 Climate Change Synthesis report here and below are just a couple of relevant excerpts.

In comparison, changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to have caused a small radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to+0.30] W/m2, which is less than half the estimate given in the TAR. {WGI 2.7, SPM} (page 38)

Current models suggest ice mass losses increase with temperature more rapidly than gains due to increased precipitation and that the surface mass balance becomes negative (net ice loss) at a global average warming (relative to pre-industrial values) in excess of 1.9 to 4.6°C. (page 47)