Leo Lane says:

Jeremy, you are probably just an AGW troll and nowhere near as ignorant as you
pretend

I haven't intended to pretend but I'll tell you anyway: I know a very great
deal more relevant science than most people and a very great deal less than
scientists who work in the area.

I didn't mean to insult anyone by calling them "deniers" - the phrase "true
believers" in the original article
(and I indicated I'm not exactly sure what that means) seemed to be
well matched by the phrase "true deniers".

spindoc

You say:
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 >>.

I do not understand how this post directs me to a paper for me to read.
The next poster (curmudgeon) shows how to reference a paper.

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

The only obligation I undertook was to read such a paper. I will read the one
that the next poster (curmudgeon) has indicated, assuming I can find it online.

curmudgeon:
Thanks for the references - actually I'll read the second one.

About the first - according to your description it confirms that the "elephant
in the room", so to speak, is feedbacks rather than pure CO2 forcing. True.
(which is why there is so much uncertainty. But to use the terminology of
stock market commentators - the risks (chance of surprises) are clearly more on
the "upside" than on the "downside").

This is one of several things that I see the doubters excitedly "discover",
which the scientists (including, here, people like me), knew or expected
all along. My reaction is "So ??"

The list of such things includes:
It's getting wetter, not drier, in some places
It's getting drier, not wetter, in some places
It's getting snowier, in some places
It's getting colder, in some places, in some seasons
Water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas

A diesel truck blowing black smoke is carbon.
Water vapour is white.
Co2 is colourless odourless
Isn,t it a carbon tax,

curmudgeon,

Thanks for the references - good examples of papers which look like
what I call a "serious scientific paper".

The thing is, though, the Lockwood and Fröhlich 2007 paper says there "is
considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate
and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in
the first half of the last century," but they also say
"over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have
been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in
global mean temperatures."

That is, the story one hears sometimes, that the warming trend is due to
changed solar activity, doesn't fit the facts.

If I understand your point about computer models, it means that computer models
which don't take solar activity into account would be wrong. (Agreed!)
Are you suggesting that computer models didn't take solar activity
into account? The paper makes no such suggestion.
It also makes it clear that the relevance of solar
variation to climate variation was known and studied at least since 1990,
so it seems unlikely that computer models would have ignored this factor.
But if you know that they did ignore solar variation please advise.

As for the Lorius paper, what you say about it is exactly right - it also goes
on to give (with more uncertainty) a feedback factor of 3. That is, if CO2
increase directly gives a temperature increase of 1.2 degrees, then when you
include the indirect effects (more water vapour, less reflective sea ice, etc)
you get an increase of 3.6 degrees.

As explained at
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm
which gives figures of 1 degree and 3 degrees respectively.

So they're good papers (so far as I can tell), which don't support the
doubters/deniers (or whatever I should call them) at all

That’s OK jeremy, you just keep on playing “scientific information” with you chemistry set. My grandkids have an old cash register in the attic, you can play “shops’ next.

I don’t think anyone expected you to answer any questions you never do, just more scientific mumbo jumbo. I do understand why you should volunteer to interact with only the 1% of the population that do understand the science, that way you never will have to provide any answers.

spin doc - have you (or anyone) asked me any questions? - I haven't noticed. Not that you have any reason to expect that I should be able to answer them

You can't make a case for increased immigration or ANY immigration (more PEOPLE folks) at all in a country that is so afraid of AGW (that's PEOPLE caused warming folks) that it must introduce new hefty quality-of-life-reducing taxes.

It's either insanity or the EVILEST 'Con' since Hitler promised Germany the World in 1938.

I mean its like the captain of sinking ship taking on Gold bullion from rescue boats, (saying it will prevent sinking because it can pay for repairs) and then sending rescuers away because She believes when She gets to Port She will be the Richest most influential person on the Planet. All the passengers are so afraid they ACTUALLY believe this INSANITY rather than THINK for themselves & shoot through with the next rescue boat.

Julia Rudd and Tony Hockey ultimately will go down in history as the biggest proponents of self-serving BS PROPAGANDA since the Red suited pointy tailed Adolf Hitler.

And can you believe that the Australian people allow this insanity ?Currently nearly 1/2 of Australians were born overseas and couldn't care less if Australia turns into a bankrupt desert. All foreign interests infecting this nation care about is keeping Australia's bounteous wealth being sucked out by losers and sent to foreign shores. Of course our politicians are getting trinkets, GST and obsequious bitch slapping Parliament House POWER & will be looking the wrong way when the the Shi Tzu multicultyral axe falls.

No wonder the Yanks love Julia. Through the tears in Congress you can almost hear "There's one born Every minute!"

AGW? Forget it. Civil war is a far more certain fear for those with an ear to the ground.