An inconvenient truth.... or lie?

The only alarm bell ringing for me is that I have obviously been far too generous in my estimations of your good self...Do you really think that an entire world body of scientists is going to publish results that conveniently miss out error bars that reduce the output to random gibberish, AND ASSUME THAT THEY ARE GOING TO GET AWAY WITH IT??????As I have said before, you really do have to start *THINKING*..Perhaps you can point out a peer-reviewed published paper that discusses the correct error range once the massive uncertainty in water-vapour is factored in?While you are looking, I will point you to this paper from the IPCC site - Climate Models and Their Evaluation. Perhaps, once you have read it, you can let me know how many times the phrase 'water vapour' (notice the English spelling) is not mentioned, and how blatently water vapour is ignored in the models as both a forcing agent, a feedback agent, and its secondary and tertiary effects. While you're reading it, you could also note the complete lack of comment regarding clouds and albedo.