Curmudgeon,

You said:
Jeremy - I didn't undestand your comment about snow. Am I suppose to have made a comment about snow?

No, this was a response to someone else - it seems the list of 850 papers was compiled by someone who thinks that more snow is inconsistent with global warming.

You said:
Those papers, which you asked for but don't want to read, add up to a contradiction of global warming theory.

Which exactly? The first (from my reading its summary - the whole thing seems to be not available), and the rest (I gather from your own post) show other factors influencing climate. I don't think anyone denies this.

If you are prepared to identify _one_ which supports the denial of the role of CO2, which is available on the internet, I will definitely read it.

For the poster who referred to the petition project, look at what oism in the web address stands for. Then ask yourself: can you find scientific support for the denialist view in any less "odd-ball" institution than OISM?

Jeremy, you are probably just an AGW troll and nowhere near as ignorant as you pretend, but I will go along with it, this far.

There is a scientist named David Evans who was employed in the AGW scam until he realised the situation, and he is now happy to explain why AGW is a fraud. He learnt it from the inside of the AGW industry. He says:

“There is no hotspot in the tropics at 10 km up, so now we know that greenhouse warming is not the (main) cause of global warming — so we know that carbon emissions are not the (main) cause of global warming.”

http://mises.org/daily/2795

There are endless instances of dishonesty of the IPCC being shown up, and highlighted by emails of the scientists collaborating with the IPCC to hoodwink the public.

You can read them yourself on the internet, how they wished to “hide the decline” in temperature, how they unethically exercised control over previously respected scientific journals, and how they falsely presented “scientific data”.

All the public see are the headlines that the miscreants have been “cleared” by three different “enquiries”. This is the extent of the blatant corruption of the AGW pushers.

Just this dishonesty would convince me that AGW was wrong. Otherwise why could they not just tell the truth, if they had science to back their assertion, which they do not.

Get it clear, Jeremy, the onus is on the people asserting AGW to back it with science, which they are unable to do. There is no onus on the Realists, who you have the ill grace to call "deniers". Deniers are people who deny that AGW is unscientific, politically argued fraud.

Notice how bonmot evades the issue of his failure to produce science to back the AGW assertion. He refers us to the pompous clown Ross Garnaut, who covers his backside in relation to the AGW fraud that he is pushing, by saying that science is not his field.

bonmot's post is a prime example of evasion, by use of weasel words. He is an expert at it.

jeremy, <<aren't the "true deniers" also mostly people with very limited knowledge of the science? (ie like 99% of the population).

Burra NSW << While not a scientist, my research indicates that the scientifically unqualified make up the bulk of the sceptics>>

bonmot, << What most 'sceptics' don't seem to understand is that natural variability is now masked by an anthropogenic component. >>

I think we get the message. We skeptics are all scientifically illiterate, so why do you keep flogging us to death with your science? What is it about your own contradictions you don’t understand?

If you are so smart, why don’t you take the “one scientific paper,” “written by someone who knows how to write a _scientific_ paper,” which you requested, and answer the scientific questions raised by Professor Bob Carter?

This “single scientific paper” you requested has already been sent to the entire, official, Australian “warmertariat”. See << Posted by spindoc, Friday, 11 March 2011 6:50:51 PM >>.

You offered the challenge and it has been accepted. Please meet your obligations under that challenge and respond.

If a “no scientific response” is the best the “warmertariat” has to offer, the judgment call has to be to “let them be”. There is nothing, it would seem, that skepticism can offer that will be of any value. They are a lost cause and do not wish to be found

jeremy - thank you for your explanation about snow. But I regret I must join the doubters. If you will recall in recent years global warmers have been warning repeatedly that snow would soon be a distant memory, only to be completely contradicted by events. Its one of those many situations where it is best to give a little (snow-covered) ground, rather than try to insist all along the global warming was really all about more snow.

As for the CO2, the actual reference is the classic paper The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming by a group of French scientists led by C. Lorius (Nature, September 13, 1990 – it’s available online). This says that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperatures by 1.1 degrees – that is the effect, without feedbacks, will be 1.1 degrees.

Another paper, Recently opposite directed trends in climate forcings and the global mean surface temperature (Proceedings of the Royal Society A, July 13, 2007), "defends" global warming against attacks by the solar magnetism crowd. Unfortunately it conceeds that the link existed up to at least the mid-70s, and that destroys previous proofs using computer models. These models were set up to mimic the historical temperature record as definite "proof" of global warming but were shown, by the paper, to not incude a vital factor.

All this and the other papers I have cited do not destroy global warming as a theory, I admit - so its not directly contradicted, yet -but does gravely weaken it as a theory. It does destroy it as a forecasting system, however.

Enjoyed these exchanges. They've helped clarify my own thoughts on the issue.

I had heard of this new alarmist tactic demanding skeptics now prove CO2 is not causing dangerous climate disruption (did I get that right?) and this the first time I've seen it here on OLO ..

This was Trenbath's ploy recently to wordsmith carefully so that the weight of proof is removed from alarmists, who cannot produce the proof, rely on authority and weight of words .. but no proof of course.

Then we get the alarmists who say, but science isn't about truth .. or proof, it's about weight of evidence (or weight of printed paper .. one or the other), right up till they fell on Trenbath's ploy of demanding proof from skeptics

Ah, makes me happy to see such trickery and slippery scientists and alarmists at work .. now of course PROOF is the new demand of skeptics ..

Do you understand skepticism, it is questioning something that doesn't see quite right, that can't be proved .. but the alarmist response is bullying and derogatory insults .. yep, that's the new science.

Elephants will fall from the air say the scientists, well of course there won't say the sceptics, what an absurd thing to say .. there's no science to support such a thing .. PROVE IT, shout the alarmists!

The world is going to end say the alarmists, no it's not say the skeptics .. PROVE IT, shout the alarmists.

haha .. makes my day, to see alarmists grasping at such tactics, ah come on guys, seriously, how much will the temperature drop if we tax CO2 production? Don't tell me about other forms of pollution or AGW, it's about CO2 .. as our government.

Curmudgeon, we do not have to destroy anthropogenic global warming.

It only exists as a theory which becomes more threadbare every year.
AGW is struggling to be established. No science is “settled” about it. There is no consensus about it, other than in the lies of the fraud pushers, like Naomi Oreskes.

It is sad that there are so many scientists prepared to refrain from criticism of the myth, but there are far more than the 31,000 scientist who signed the petition to Congress, that say that there is no scientific base for AGW.

An estimated $90 bn has been spent in the frantic attempt to find some science which gives the AGW myth some reality. There is no such science.

Curmudgeon, it is up to the fraud pushers to establish a basis for AGW, not up to the Realists to disprove something that has no scientific basis for its existence.

As an honest scientist said recently:

“The truly objective scientist should be asking whether MORE, not less, atmospheric carbon dioxide is what we should be trying to achieve. There is more published real-world evidence for the benefits of more carbon dioxide, than for any damage caused by it. The benefits have been measured, and are real-world. The risks still remain theoretical.”

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/02/on-the-house-vote-to-defund-the-ipcc/

The Realists do not need to demolish something that has not been established. It is up to the Deniers. They deny that climate is governed by natural cycles. They have tried to prove otherwise, and have failed.

The Deniers of Nature are reduced to evasive nonsense posts like bonmot’s.

Carbon is Life. CO2 is a beneficial gas. AGW pushers, the Deniers, are anti life.