The integrity of science requires, among many other things, avoiding the misleading use of statistics and data. Yet one of the easiest and most common ways to misrepresent science or to mislead the public and policy makers is to selectively choose data that tells only part of a story, or the wrong part of a story.
A common way to do this is through the use of a misleading comparison, or what I call the inappropriate denominator trick. Here are three examples from recent interactions between policy and science, from three very different fields, where science and statistics are being misused in a similar manner to mislead the public and policy makers.
Bottled water and groundwater use: Many local communities with existing or proposed bottled water plants are concerned that so much water will be pumped from local aquifers that local streams, ecosystems, or wells used by farmers or homes will be badly affected. I discuss examples in detail in my new book: Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water. The bottled water industry, however, regularly tries to mislead the public by comparing their use of water to an irrelevant, but very large number, i.e., by using a misleading denominator. For example, a paper from the industry-funded Drinking Water Research Foundation (self-described as "Co-located with and partially supported by the International Bottled Water Association in Alexandria, VA") concluded "Total annual bottled water production in 2001 was found to be a trivial component (0.019%) of total fresh groundwater withdrawals." In this case, the industry is dividing their water use (the numerator) by a huge number (total national groundwater withdrawal) intentionally chosen to make their impact appear small. This misleading comparison will be small consolation in the local communities where the actual consequences of inappropriate groundwater withdrawals are felt.
The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico: The CEO of BP, Tony Hayword, recently used the exact same misleading denominator trick when he said:
"The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume."Wow. Nervy. This will be of small consolation to the coastal communities, the fisheries, the dead and dying wildlife, and the economy of the Gulf Coast, for whom the spill is a very big deal, no matter how large the volume of the Gulf of Mexico. This is also a grossly misleading comparison driven by an inappropriate denominator.
Carbon dioxide and climate change: The third example, in exactly the same misleading vein, is the claim by some that carbon dioxide is such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere (over 390 parts of CO2 in every million parts of the atmosphere - the inappropriate denominator comparison again), that human production of CO2 couldn't possibly be affecting the climate. This grossly misleading (and grossly scientifically incorrect) claim is like saying we can add just a little bit of cyanide to a glass of water and not worry about it - after all, it's just a tiny bit compared to the volume of water in the glass. Wrong. In this case, the misleading statistic is only part of the problem; the argument is faulty science too. It is, of course, the effectiveness of each molecule in trapping energy that counts, not only the number of molecules. And the role of carbon dioxide and other gases that also contribute to the earth's greenhouse effect is incredibly well understood by scientists.
Scientists and the public must call out such phony science and point out misleading uses of statistics, by all sides. These kinds of misleading comparisons, whether done intentionally by polluters or anti-environmental extremists or environmental activists on the other side, or unintentionally by people who just don't know better, should be highlighted and disputed quickly and publicly, so that policy makers are not misled.
The bottom line? Some bottled-water company groundwater extractions can and do cause local problems. The amount of oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico is causing vast environmental and economic damage. And human additions to greenhouse gases are changing the climate.
Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute
1.You put yourself forward as an expert on water touting 'Pacific Institute' water expertise.
2.Your tax exempt charity 'The Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security' published a glossy 'paper' entitled "Agricultural Water Conservation and Efficiency in California Special Focus on the Delta", the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta a short drive from your Oakland offices.
3.'Pacific Institute':"The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a crucial resource. .... and more than half of Californians rely on water conveyed through the Delta for at least some of their water supply."
4.A current case before UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case 1:09-cv-01053-OWW-DLB refers to water distribution in the delta.
5.In this matter His Honor Justice Oliver W. Wanger has seen fit to, in legal terms, castigate proffered science as "arbitrary and capricious."
6.As this matter is within your professed field of expertise and right in your back yard were you or any member of the 'Pacific Institute' called to give evidence?
7.If so was evidence given by yourself or any member of the 'Pacific Institute' subject to judicial derision.
8.If not how could it be that neither of the litigant parties considered the "Pacific Institute" or its President, author of many books on the subject, could be useful expert witnesses? Why would they have to reach to the East Coast for experts?
Do tell
Your grasping at straws here in your ongoing effort to attack Dr. Gleick is absurd.
Your attempt here to cast doubt on Dr. Gleik's expertise if he and/or others at the Pacific Institute may be or have been expert witnesses in a court trial is baseless and silly - court trials do not establish scientific truth.
And your attempt here to cast doubt on Dr. Gleik's expertise if he and/or others at the Pacific Institute may NOT be or have been expert witnesses in that court trial instead is ridiculous - expert witnesses do not testify at every trial related to their expertise, far from it, and the narrow, specific under consideration at said trial may not have been or a good match for his and/or their specific expertise in any event.
Hope this helps.
Perhaps you missed what the National Academy of Sciences has to say about global warming, gleikenspiel - let me help you with that.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
--------------------------------------------
There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels. Global warming is closely associated with other climate changes and impacts, including rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events, decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer growing seasons, and ocean acidification. Individually and collectively, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations...
continued...
Projections of future climate change anticipate an additional warming of 2.0 to 11.5 F (1.1 to 6.4 C) over the 21st century, on top of the 1.4 oF already observed over the past 100 years...
There is also the potential that the Earth system could cross thresholds that result in abrupt changes or other “surprises.” The potential consequences of such events could be irreversible and highly challenging, but their likelihood is not very well understood.
Despite these uncertainties and complexities, it is clear that Earth’s future climate will be unlike the climate that ecosystems and human societies have become accustomed to during the last 10,000 years, leading to significant challenges across a broad range of human endeavors. It is likewise reasonable to expect that the magnitude of future climate change and the severity of its impacts will be larger if actions are not taken to limit its magnitude and adapt to its impacts.
______________________
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science_Report_Brief_Final.pdf
Do you understand that, unlike CO2 and other greenhouse gases, water vapor cannot be a long-term (multidecadal and greater) global warming forcing agent?
Please answer the question with a 'yes' or a 'no' and otherwise add whatever else you wish - thanks.
gleikenspiel: {{{ crickets }}}
So you jumped into the middle of our conversation on beyond-climategeddon
and assumed I was a denier.
But now I see you agree with me: Climate is chaotic, humans are changing the atmosphere with CO2 and Methane. This is making climate change more rapid. That's bad. We should switch away from fossil to solar wind and waste bio fuels.
If you had looked into our thread, you would have known that.
Not everyone who question the accuracy of the models is a denier.
Chaotic Climate paper by Edward Lorenz:
http://eapsweb.mit.edu/research/Lorenz/Deterministic_63.pdf
1963 Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences. Vol.20 : 130—141””
“cooling possible:
http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~pditlev/papers/2008PA001673.pdf”
Here's the original Solomon from Kings 8 : Please note the common religious fervor and style:-
35 When you hold back the rain because your people have sinned against you, and then when they repent and face this Temple, humbly praying to you,
36 listen to them in heaven. Forgive the sins of the king and of the people of Israel, and teach them to do what is right. Then, O Lord, send rain on this land of yours, which you gave to your people as a permanent possession.
37 When there is famine in the land or an epidemic or the crops are destroyed by scorching winds or swarms of locusts, or when your people are attacked by their enemies, or when there is disease or sickness among them,
--------------------------------
gleikenspiel: "Let's forget about the major green house gas, water vapor, lets just ignore it so the CO2 volumes will appear more significant. More misleading science lets categorize the residual gases as 'dry' with the incorrect corollary that water vapor is 'wet'. Save me."
Do you understand that, unlike CO2 and other greenhouse gases, water vapor cannot be a long-term (multidecadal and greater) global warming forcing agent, gleikenspiel?
Please answer the question with a 'yes' or a 'no' and otherwise add whatever else you wish - thanks in advance.
From Congressional testimony by climatologist Dr. Susan Solomon, March 17, 2009:
--------------------
By about the end of the 21st century, carbon dioxide concentrations could become as high as 1000 parts per million if emissions worldwide continue rising at a rate typical of the last decade, which is about 2% per year. The best current science implies that with a sustained level of 1000 ppmv over carbon dioxide, an average day would be about 10 degrees F warmer than today, which corresponds to a greatly changed climate. Heat wave as bad or worse than the worst current heat waves (such as the one in Europe in 2003 that led to the deaths of more than 10,000 people) would become common. There is now increased confidence that decreased rainfall can be expected as the world warms in parts of southwestern North America, west Australia, southern Europe, and both northern and southern Africa.
continued...
Droughts comparable to the dust bowl can be expected to occur in the future not just occasionally in limited regions, but in all of these places and at the same time. Many of the world's most desolate deserts would expand as semi-arid soils dry out. Glaciers and snowpack that provide water to at least a billion people would disappear. Fires would become more common in these dry regions, and fire frequency is also expected to increase in many locations that dependent upon snowpack for their water supply, such as California. Insect pests would become more common, with attendant damage to crops and forests. All of these impact are based on physical processes that are well understood, and represent aspects of the science for which confidence is very high...
continued...
Sea level rose by about 6 inches in the 20th century. How much further it will rise is not well understood. It is well understood that water expands when heated... It is also clear that small glaciers world wide have lost mass as the world has warmed... These two processes are well understood and can be expected to produce up to 3 feet of sea level rise within the next two to three centuries if carbon dioxide continues to increase. Three feet of sea level rise would inundate many small island and low lying coastal regions, such as Florida, and this is already becoming part of coastal planning in many regions. A third process many be very important but is very poorly understood, the rapid flow of the great ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland... The potential contribution could be on the order of a few meters over centuries, but this is very uncertain.
---
http://appropriations.house.gov/Witness_testimony/CJS/Susan_Solomon_03_17_09.pdf
Latest climate climbdown: the Royal Society reviews its statements on global warming Written by Gerald Warner, Telegraph | 28 May 2010
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/green-affected/7034-latest-climate-climbdown-the-royal-society-reviews-its-statements-on-global-warming
"In fact this review has been forced on the Society by 43 of its Fellows who demanded last January that the pamphlet Climate Change Controversies, produced in 2007 and published on its website, should be rewritten to take a less aggressive stance in support of AGW and respect climate change “agnostics”. In such partisan activities the Royal Society has form: in 2005 it published “A guide to facts and fictions about climate change”, which denounced 12 “misleading arguments” which today, post Climategate and the subsequent emboldening of sceptical scientists to speak out, look far from misleading."
However:-
"This development does not, of course, mean that the Royal Society is embracing climate scepticism. On the contrary, it is very reluctantly modifying its stance to accommodate some of its Fellows who take the very scientific position that a degree of agnosticism is good practice when hypotheses remain unproven. Yet this retreat from absolutist global warming orthodoxy will deeply dismay the AGW lobby."
But on the other hand:-
"The European and global financial crisis has also concentrated minds on the insanity of squandering $45 trillion on an imaginary threat, to make carbon traders billionaires"
I'm not surprised that you get your "news" from the likes of Gerald Warner, gleikenspiel - Warner being another conservative propagandist a la Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck.
Warner concludes his latest blog post that you've copy-and-pasted from twice here with the following:
"Slowly but surely, the sceptical camp is winning. Daily the alarmists are forced to give ground. They will contest every inch of the way; it will be trench warfare against them for years; but the tide of battle has shifted decisively and the AGW superstition will ultimately be defeated."
News flash : That's not real science skepticism, Gleickenspiel - that's anti-science "trench warfare" from a global warming denier.
Anyway, back to the reality-based world of global warming science:
"A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems."
-- The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2010)
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science_Report_Brief_Final.pdf
Poor guy. Personally, I find your barrage of deception and lies here and then when called on them you throw mud and run away more 'abusive', but hey, to each their own.
In any event, that question isn't "silly" - it's instead in reference to a fundamental aspect of atmospheric physics and global warming theory, and per your rhetoric something that you evidently do not understand.
On the other hand, if you do understand that water vapor cannot be a global warming forcing agent then instead of being deeply ignorant on the science of global warming you were instead being deeply and grotesquely dishonest when you attempted to impugn Dr. Gleick's integrity with this ridiculously incorrect rhetoric of yours:
"what a fine example of of misleading science you [Dr. Gleick] dish up next. Let's forget about the major green house gas, water vapor, lets just ignore it so the CO2 volumes will appear more significant. More misleading science lets categorize the residual gases as 'dry' with the incorrect corollary that water vapor is 'wet'. Save me."
Speaking of that "silly" question:
Do you understand that, unlike CO2 and other greenhouse gases, water vapor cannot be a long-term (multidecadal and greater) global warming forcing agent?
Please answer the question with a 'yes' or a 'no' and otherwise add whatever else you wish; thanks.
Here's what todays Daily Telegraph has to say on the broader issue of AGW alarmism of which Mr. Glieck is a leading figure (he who was consulted in the suppression of 'hockey stick data and methodologies remember)
"That same realisation is dawning on more and more institutions and individuals, as the AGW scam becomes ever more discredited. Scepticism is now the prevailing public sentiment: the onus is on the alarmists to prove, rather than assert, their increasingly untenable claims. The European and global financial crisis has also concentrated minds on the insanity of squandering $45 trillion on an imaginary threat, to make carbon traders billionaires."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100006701/president-pantywaist-in-retreat-barack-obama-hoists-the-white-flag-over-stalinist-health-care-proposals/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/5976527/If_Sarah_Palins_church_was_burned_by_arsonists_it_is_a_warning_to_Christians/
Compare with the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2010):
"A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems."
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science_Report_Brief_Final.pdf
Who to believe, who to believe...
By the way, gleikenspiel:
"Do you understand that, unlike CO2 and other greenhouse gases, water vapor cannot be a long-term (multidecadal and greater) global warming forcing agent?"
gleikenspiel: {{{ ... crickets ... }}}
"The IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment of climate change science concluded that large reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases, principally CO2, are needed soon to slow the increase of atmospheric concentrations, and avoid reaching unacceptable levels. However, climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid. Feedbacks in the climate system might lead to much more rapid climate changes. The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable."
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
"The letter was heavily AGW oriented... The signatories are all members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences"
And in other, equally shocking news, members the National Academy of Sciences have also issued a letter that was heavily evolution oriented.
Speaking of the National Academy of Sciences and AGW, the NAS officially released the following declaration this year:
______________________
There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels. Global warming is closely associated with other climate changes and impacts, including rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events, decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer growing seasons, and ocean acidification. Individually and collectively, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations...
continued...
Projections of future climate change anticipate an additional warming of 2.0 to 11.5 F (1.1 to 6.4 C) over the 21st century, on top of the 1.4 oF already observed over the past 100 years...
There is also the potential that the Earth system could cross thresholds that result in abrupt changes or other “surprises.” The potential consequences of such events could be irreversible and highly challenging, but their likelihood is not very well understood.
Despite these uncertainties and complexities, it is clear that Earth’s future climate will be unlike the climate that ecosystems and human societies have become accustomed to during the last 10,000 years, leading to significant challenges across a broad range of human endeavors. It is likewise reasonable to expect that the magnitude of future climate change and the severity of its impacts will be larger if actions are not taken to limit its magnitude and adapt to its impacts.
______________________
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science_Report_Brief_Final.pdf
1. I refer to your letter to Science captioned the letter “Climate Change and the Integrity of Science”
2. The letter was heavily AGW oriented.
3. The publisher saw fit to embellish it with a photoshopped image of a desolate Polar Bear adrift on a solo ice floe presumably heading to extinction.
4. The web site carries the copyright notice of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
5. Footnote:“The signatories are all members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences but are not speaking on its behalf”
6. Mr. Gleick states “not all NAS members were ASKED to sign” yet puts forward the letter as representative of NAS members – “all members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences”
7. The starting ‘A’ or ‘B’ represent a geographically disperse and discipline diverse set – they are not your drinking buddies.
8. Given “all members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences” it is reasonable to take it that only NAS members were polled.
9. Given geographic and discipline spread it is hard to accept these 250+ had personal connections to you Mr. Glieck.
10. So is it your position 250++ names were pulled from a , solicited their signatures and “that vast majority of those asked to sign, signed”
11. Please advise who was polled to sign this tawdry document.
12. If not the full 2,500 odd members of the NAS how was the subset selected
13. How many declined to sign.
gleikenspiel: {{{ ... crickets ... }}}
Poor guy. Personally, I find your barrage of deception and lies here and then when called on them you throw mud and run away more 'abusive', but hey, to each their own.
In any event, that question isn't "silly" - it's instead in reference to a fundamental aspect of atmospheric physics and global warming theory, and per your rhetoric something that you evidently do not understand.
On the other hand, if you do understand that water vapor cannot be a global warming forcing agent then instead of being deeply ignorant on the science of global warming you were instead being deeply and grotesquely dishonest when you attempted to impugn Dr. Gleick's integrity with this ridiculously incorrect rhetoric of yours:
"what a fine example of of misleading science you [Dr. Gleick] dish up next. Let's forget about the major green house gas, water vapor, lets just ignore it so the CO2 volumes will appear more significant. More misleading science lets categorize the residual gases as 'dry' with the incorrect corollary that water vapor is 'wet'. Save me."
Speaking of that "silly" question:
Do you understand that, unlike CO2 and other greenhouse gases, water vapor cannot be a long-term (multidecadal and greater) global warming forcing agent?
Please answer the question with a 'yes' or a 'no' and otherwise add whatever else you wish; thanks.
--------------------------------
gleikenspiel: "Let's forget about the major green house gas, water vapor, lets just ignore it so the CO2 volumes will appear more significant. More misleading science lets categorize the residual gases as 'dry' with the incorrect corollary that water vapor is 'wet'. Save me."
Do you understand that, unlike CO2 and other greenhouse gases, water vapor cannot be a long-term (multidecadal and greater) global warming forcing agent, gleikenspiel?
Please answer the question with a 'yes' or a 'no' and otherwise add whatever else you wish - thanks in advance.
You will recall an email exchange with Phil Jones in April 2004 regarding suppression of 'hockey stick' data and processing procedures.
No? Well a copy is available here:-
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=398&filename=1076083097.txt
Here's what the House of Commons Committee had to say about the integrity of that science:-
"We recognise that some of the e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share data, even unrestricted data, with others. We acknowledge that
Professor Jones must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to
seek to undermine his work."
"Seek to "undermine" his work" - save me,
The committees recommendation:-
"In our view, CRU should have been more open with its raw data and followed the more open approach of NASA to making data available."
Wonder why Jones checked in with you first Mr. Gleick?
gleikenspiel: {{{ ... crickets ... }}}
--------------------------------
gleikenspiel: "Let's forget about the major green house gas, water vapor, lets just ignore it so the CO2 volumes will appear more significant. More misleading science lets categorize the residual gases as 'dry' with the incorrect corollary that water vapor is 'wet'. Save me."
Do understand that, unlike CO2 and other greenhouse gases, water vapor cannot be a long-term (multidecadal and greater) global warming forcing agent?
Please answer the question with a 'yes' or a 'no' and otherwise add whatever else you wish, gleikenspiel - thanks in advance.
Don't know - what are the hallmarks of a scam or cult; of Scientology; of Ponzi schemes; of low start home loans; where to look -
hmm google it and lo an article 'The Orange Papers' cult test at:-
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_q0.html#cq_cult_speak.
Edited to fit, shamelessly cherry-picked for relevance
1. The Guru is always right.
2. You are always wrong.
7. Irrationality.
8. Suspension of disbelief.
9. Denigration of competing sects, cults, religions...
10. Personal attacks on critics.
11. Insistence that the cult is THE ONLY WAY.
14. Unquestionable Dogma, Sacred Science
16. Appeals to "wise" authorities.
27. You Can't Tell The Truth.
30. The End Justifies The Means.
32. Different Levels of Truth.
47. Thought-terminating clichés and slogans.
57. The cult leader is not held accountable for his actions.
58. Everybody else needs the guru to boss him around, but nobody bosses the guru around.
59. The guru criticizes everybody else, but nobody criticizes the guru.
60. Dispensed truth and social definition of reality
61. The Guru Is Extra-Special.
62. Flexible, shifting morality
64. Inability to tolerate criticism
65. A Charismatic Leader
81. Hypocrisy
82. Denial of the truth. Reversal of reality. Rationalization and Denial.
85. Enemy-making and Devaluing the Outsider
92. Bombastic, Grandiose Claims.
93. Black And White Thinking
97. Appropriation of all of the members' worldly wealth.
Form your own opinion.
gleikenspiel: {{{ ... crickets ... }}}
It would be more interesting, you know, if you demonstrated that any of these actually apply to the Pacific Institute.
But, frankly, I think your list would be a lot easier to apply to George Bush.
True.
In fact, I've examined the list, and it's my opinion that, at minimum, items 2, 7, 9, 47, 64, 81, and 82 (oh, especially 82) all apply to ... gleikenspiel. I guess he's a cult.
I love denier irony.
gleikenspiel: "Let's forget about the major green house gas, water vapor, lets just ignore it so the CO2 volumes will appear more significant. More misleading science lets categorize the residual gases as 'dry' with the incorrect corollary that water vapor is 'wet'. Save me."
You do understand that, unlike CO2 and other greenhouse gases, water vapor cannot be a long-term (multidecadal and greater) global warming forcing agent... don't you, gleikenspiel?
Please answer the question with a 'yes' or a 'no' and otherwise add whatever else you wish, gleikenspiel - thanks in advance.
Sir, you open this thread with "The integrity of science requires, among many other things,..."; you set the topic as integrity
The topic here is integrity.
gleikenspiel: "The topic here is integrity."
And you've tried to impugn Dr. Gleik's integrity here in part by falsely asserting that he is saying here that we should "forget about the major green house gas, water vapor, lets just ignore it so the CO2 volumes will appear more significant."
That's a lie on your part, gleikenspiel, and if you understood the basic physics of the Greenhouse Effect and global warming science then you too would understand as much.
Again:
Do understand that, unlike CO2 and other greenhouse gases, water vapor cannot be a long-term (multidecadal and greater) global warming forcing agent?
Please answer the question with a 'yes' or a 'no' and otherwise add whatever else you wish; thanks.