Peter A
I accept all your four points as correct.
The argument from my point of view is this
1. What is the magnitude of the CO2 radiative forcing in respect to other influences and forces on the atmospheric circulation?
2. The absorption of infrared radiation is related to the log of CO2 concentration and therefore as concentration increases the incremental absorption and subsequent re-radiation is smaller.
3. The earth is probably never in energy balance. The heat capacity of the earth including oceans should buffer any ill effects.
4. The question of water vapour, the moisture content of air masses which increases with temperature is seen by some such as the IPPC as a positive feedback. Others raise the question of increased cloud cover and negative feedback.
5. I have seen various estimates for the proportion of non-anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide.
6. Concentration of CO2 in atmosphere shows seasonal and geographical variation. It is not clear to me that this is due entirely to human activity.
7. Surface air temperature measurements from land stations are known to be erratic, non-random in location and not always operated according to vigorous protocol.
8. Satellite data has only been available for about forty years and the Argos system in operation for only about 5-6 years. Too short a time in my view to obtain meaningful trend lines.
9. The poor predictive value of climate models and the exaggerated claims in some sections of IPPC.
10. There are many known unknowns and unknown unknowns in climate science.

Very deceptive Raycom - 'mine-quoting' and 'spin-doctoring' The Royal Society - but I suspect typical.

Others may be interested in what The Royal Society really says:

http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/

Download the PDF to put Raycom's assertions in context.

Raycom says:

"They work on the basis that if you say something often enough, people will believe you -- unfortunately, the gullible fall for that sort of brain washing."

Yep, that's what he, Leo Lane and others here have been doing time and time again.

Hasbeen, you appear to think that one set of tree ring proxies for temperature in one region is proof of both no warming and of data manipulation. That you want actual measurements by thermometers to be discarded in favour of a dodgy batch of data to 'hide the incline' doesn't surprise me; it's about as good as arguments against AGW ever get. Like the 'statistically significant warming' question posed to Jones, it reveals more about who composed the question than about whether or not we have a real warming trend; it being a specific technical term and 15 years being too small a sample making it an impossibility. Whoever thought up the question surely knew this and knew that Jones would answer it honestly. The past 15 years is the warmest 15 years on record is ignored. A statistically significant warming trend for the past 21 years - that sample size being enough to get the 95% confidence needed - is real. 30 years, too. That's sinister. What Jones does deserve criticism for is his handling of a deluge of FOI requests.

None of the science by Jones has been shown to be wrong. None of the data shown to be distorted or misused. It is consistent with every other global temperature measure.

As for Darwin - a single location not the globe btw - the move of the weather station made a clear sudden drop in measured temperature, it was right to adjust it. You can see discussion of the bogus Darwin claims here - http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php - and for the hows and whys of temperature data adjustment in Australia try - http://reg.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2004/dellamarta.pdf

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel; using unadjusted data actually results in more apparent global warming, not less. As usual the deniers just say stuff that's wrong and hope no-one bothers to check. And ignore or deride anyone who does.

Raycom
So the physics of spectrometry that allows everything from the microwave to the internet is just to be ruled out? It’s all bunk? They can’t prove the basic radiative properties of carbon dioxide, water, methane? You’re amazing to even suggest that.

Watch this video at about 60 seconds in. It shows a *thermal* camera trying to peer through a tube of Co2 at a candle on the other side. When the tube is empty, the camera clearly shows heat flaring off the candle flame. Then Co2 is pumped into the tube. The heat is refracted away from the tube and can't hit the camera. To the thermal camera the flame winks out, while in the real world the candle burns. The heat can't get through.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw&feature=related

Your reference to the post-WW2 'pause' in global warming is true enough. It happened. Thing is, climatologists know why. Sulfur from dirty coal stacks. They’ve got scrubbers now, to prevent the nasty acid rain we were suffering. So global *dimming* cleared up somewhat, and global warming returned. We KNOW about particulate sulfur and how it works. Some even propose shooting sulfur into the stratosphere and turning the sky white as a solution for global warming if we can’t get Co2 under control. Yuk. Goodbye blue Aussie sky. But here's the thing: we KNOW about it. You're acting like there's some big mystery post WW2 is just so much rubbish.

You sound like the director of the “Great Global Warming Swindle” —  Anthony Durkin who was just jerkin his gherkin.

It’s such a tired old myth, number 12 of the top 29 myths.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming.html

These arguments are so old and tired and worn out now. Can’t you just drop it? The fact that they get trotted out DESPITE the continual new data shows they’re dogma, not science.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462

Eclipse Now

It is naive to suggest that the CO2 tube experiment is representative of the action of an atmospheric CO2 concentration of less than 4 parts per 10,000.

You may benefit from reading Anti-green's comment about causation.

Instead of clutching at straws, simply table the scientific evidence that illustrates that global warming has been caused by anthropogenic gas emissions.

There is another study just published that appears to dispute Spencer:-

http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/09/science-cloud-feedback-likely-positive/#more-38131

Raycom
Just go to http://www.skepticalscience.com/ and download there new publication 'The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism' or visit the home page all the information is their.
Or you could contribute to the discussion on their web site anyone can.