Leo Lane -

This from the Australian Academy of Science, http://www.science.org.au/publications/research-projects-and-policy.html :

"Is there a disagreement between satellite and surface temperature records?
Not any more. While a disagreement did exist in the 1990s, it has largely been resolved by correction of biases in the satellite data, for example to account for drift in satellite orbits over time 48, 49. Given the remaining uncertainties in satellite-derived trends, there is
now acceptable agreement between satellite and ground-based measurements of surface temperature."

So you need to update your evidence.

Also, you have no idea how science works. It is not about proof, that only applies to logic and mathematics. Science is about consistency with observations, and in the natural sciences the picture is rarely clear-cut. In climate science, we know we have to act before the evidence becomes conclusive, because of delays in the climate system. So the pertinent question IS about preponderance of evidence. See http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/for-global-warming-sceptics/

OK, Geoff, it is about observation, and there are no observations which confirm AGW. Your continual efforts to conflate global warming, which everyone acknowledges exists with AGW, for which there is no evidence, are pathetic.

That could be your only purpose in referring us to that unscientific propaganda link.

Scientific observations are required to be objective, and that is one thing you are not, Geoff. Your support for the disgraceful conduct of the Climategate miscreants is astounding, in one who claims to be a scientist.

Any way, Geoff, it is clear that you still have no scientific observations or evidence which support the AGW assertion. No one does, but we have plenty of dishonest misinformation and misdirection.. There is no scientific evidence of AGW.

Ludwig, I have been as clear as I can. Despite all the words from the alarmists, there is no scientific evidence that human emissions have any measurable effect on global warming. The onus is on them to back their assertion with science, which they cannot.

Global warming is an established fact, any effect by human emissions on global warming, other than a negligible effect which cannot be measured, has not been shown to exist.

A petition containing the following “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gas is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate” has been signed by over 31,000 scientists, with more signing continually.

Put this against the five independent scientists who endorse the IPCC’s “very likely” assertion (originally seven, but two withdrew their support). Another 55 conflicted scientists ( the equivalent of the Climategate miscreants) backed it.

Hope this assists

“The Science of Climate Change questions and answers” by The Australian Academy of Science has been on its website since August.

It would appear that many of those posting comments, and the author as well, have not bothered to read it. That is unfortunate for any of these who wish to retain an open mind on the issue

Thanks Leo

That answers my first question.

But the second one remains unaddressed:

Can you assert that we should be doing nothing about AGW, or the anthropogenic release of carbon from fossil fuels and forest clearing, and just continue with business as usual?

Can I take issue with your statement:

<< Despite all the words from the alarmists, there is no scientific evidence that human emissions have any measurable effect on global warming. The onus is on them to back their assertion with science, which they cannot. >>

Why is the onus on them? Isn't the onus on us all to be careful and if we are to err, to err on the side of caution?

In the absence of proof or of a very high level of consensus among the experts that AGW is not real or not significant, shouldn't we be just doing what we can to reduce our emissions and change our energy regime, just as fully as we would be if AGW had been confirmed to be very ominous?

Leo -
Ah, the grand conspiracy - no scientist can be believed, therefore there is no evidence. And a string of offensive characterisations for colour. If you mean there is no *proof*, I already addressed that furphy. If you really mean there's no *evidence*, then nothing I could say would usefully advance debate with such a closed mind, not that that was my expectation.

For those interested, NOAA has put up some recent (August) evidence that gets more directly than ever at demonstrating that heat is being trapped in the atmosphere in the manner, and at the wavelengths, expected from the CO2 mechanism:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/10/10-indicators-of-a-human-fingerprint-on-climate-change/
Quote, point 6
"A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”"
References are provided.

Geoff: I have your book, but it shows you have no knowledge of regression analysis. If you would like to see my results using that, do email me at tcurtin at bigblue.net.au.

Until you can refute my results, I advise you keep quiet, as you could find yourself in class actions from Slater and Gordon, led by la Julia!