Climate Sensitivity: which do you believe-models or data?

Climate sensitivity (expected change in global temperature due to a doubling of CO2 levels/Watts per sq meter (°C/(W/m²))) according to actual data:

• Spencer:   .18         (see slide below, recent satellite data)
• Lindzen:   .08 -.3   (derived from WSJ article about pre-publication results)
• Monckton:   .12     (see slide below)
• Paltridge:   .1 - .3   (based on NCEP trends, figure 10 of paper)
• Schwartz:  .3           (paper)
• Spectroscopic data without feedbacks:  .3  (see slide below, and derived from GISS email)

And according to the fictitious GIGO computer models of:

• IPCC:   .55 - 1.1      (see Dr. Spencer's & Monckton's slides below; average .88)
• NASA/GISS:   1.135     (derived from recently released NASA/GISS emails)

which incorporate imaginary mystical positive feedback amplification factors as much as 14 times higher (1.135/.08) than what the empirical data shows.

Which do you believe?

From Dr. Roy Spencer's Lecture: (part 2)

From Lord Monckton's Lecture:

(Note some figures approximated from graphs. Note any sensitivity number less than the 0.3 °C/(W/m²) derived from spectroscopic data implies that the net feedback is negative not positive)

Related: Climate models and the laws of physics

Related: Theoretical derivation of Sensitivity (~.3)

Related: A Critical Examination of Climate Change

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If your theory doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong" - Richard Feynman,  Nobel Laureate in Physics