I'll take an example of the actual voodoo. This is a well-cited article often given as proof of the greenhouse gas effect. It is
Philipona, R., B. Durr, A. Ohmura, and C. Ruckstuhl (2005), Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L19809, doi:10.1029/2005GL023624
It is open access. So you can read it. In a nutshell, the errors made by the authors of this paper are:
- they base their claims on models of a greenhouse gas effect
- they do not show this greenhouse gas effect by means of fundamental science (controlled experiment and/or observation)
- The greenhouse gas effect they invoke contradicts fundamental science. It contradicts the laws of thermodynamics. We know the laws of thermodynamics are settled science.
- they do not properly consider other causes (such as cloud albedo changes) for the effects they look at over this time period.
They claim that:
"gradual temperature and humidity increases from west to east [Europe] are not related to circulation but must be due to non-uniform water vapour feedback" AKA a greenhouse gas effect
- They do not show a "greenhouse gas effect".
- They do not show water vapour feedback. They defer to God-like models.
- They do not really consider changing cloud albedo effects instead as a cause for the processes they discuss. They summarily dismiss it.
- They assume a correlation of temperature changes with water vapour feedback causes nearly all the temperature changes. They assume a correlation of water vapour changes with atmospheric carbon dioxide increases causes all the water vapour changes. Other than deferring to models, they do not show these assumed causations scientifically.
- They cite modellers (such as Held & Soden, 2000) to support their belief there's "no doubt that water vapour is the chief greenhouse gas" Which is fair enough. But I think everyone agrees - if there was a greenhouse gas effect the main perp. would be water vapour. Even slayers will agree with that one "is there was". But there isn't is there?
- They are still citing Tyndall from 1861 in support of fundamental science for a greenhouse gas effect! Lazy. The fact, they cannot cite or do any modern controlled experiments or observations in support of their ideas is sloppy, unscientific, and evidence of group-think.
- They do not cite any basic science for a greenhouse gas effect. By basic science - I mean results from controlled experiments and observations.
- They do not acknowledge that their precious greenhouse gas effect contradicts basic science. They ignore this anomaly.
- They invoke "radiative forcing"; which is itself dodgy because it assumes all radiation frequencies are equivalent in warming the surface (which "radiative forcing" assumes). Radiative forcing is pseudoscience. I maintain that the effect claimed for "radiative forcing" must be independently shown by controlled experiment and observation. This has never been tried. In particular, no one has yet shown a radiative forcing over liquid water, which of course, makes up 71% of earth's surface. By "radiative forcing", I mean, identical warming effects for radiations of different frequencies but the same wattage. That is what they assume. It has never been shown.
- They claim anthropogenic global warming (by invoking its models), but never show it. They assume previous modelling work is God - 'settled science'; and a 100% correct description of reality. They do not show that a change in man-made carbon dioxide atmospheric concentrations directly cause changes to water vapour concentrations in the atmosphere. Again they just assume it.
- I believe the reason why they are lost in model group-think is because they never gave serious consideration to greenhouse gas model critics and alternative explanations for a greenhouse effect (atmospheric warming of planetary surfaces); such as an "atmospheric heating effect".
The authors of this paper make a litany of errors. They assume untested, non-validated greenhouse gas models are God. This, no doubt, helped their careers, but it is harmful to science.