Thanks for your contribution Chris. Don't call yourself a 'flat earther' though as you do acknowledge increasing temperatures, increasing C02 and the link between them.
Rather I'd say you're perhaps coming from the same place as many in the US - 'It would be nice have warmer summers'(true of some regions) and 'If it werent for CO2 we'd freeze" yes true.
I come from Perth and see the climate here approaching that of the Pilbara where I lived for 5 years and I don't appreciate the increased warmth.

A few more points
- minor one - infra red radiation travels at the same speed as all other EM radiation - that of light; it just has a longer wavelength than visible radiation.
- Yes water vapour is the main 'warmer'. But it is short lived - more heat means it cycles quicker from the sea to clouds to rain over periods of days. CO2 and other greenhouse gases stay there for centuries; that's why they are the problem.
- the scientists say GW will bring on more climate extremes, not only drought. More heat = more water vapour = floods and storms in some places and droughts in other - like mid latitudes e.g. WA , where all that hot moist air which has cooled at altitude descends and lands on us as dry high pressure systems which force the moist westerlies south and bring hot easterlies off the land. Not pleasant when your're in a city with water shortages and and summer-long heat waves. We've also seen mini tornadoes (had one over my place last summer which ripped out trees, took off rooves and cut off power and water) and hail like golf balls that dented 50,000 cars- over 1 $billion in damage - not pleasant. I've lived here 58 years and never seen anything like this.

Chris, that is well said.

I do not agree with Realists being referred to as Flat Earthers. I think that term should be applied to the warmeciles, who have no scientific basis to assert that human emissions have any effect on climate other than a negligible effect which is not scientifically demonstrable. Of course I understand the term is used ironically, by you.

Rich2 is naïve enough to quote Wikipedia, a most notorious supporter of the scientifically bereft AGW myth backers. He might as well quote Skeptical Science, run by the mendacious Michael Mann of Hockey Stick notoriety, and who features strongly in the Climategate emails.

The “science” backing the AGW fraud all emanates from the IPCC, and the Climategate group of miscreants. Their pathetic 95% certainty is clear evidence that they have no science to support their assertion. Their prediction that a “hot spot” in the troposphere would provide the “signature” for AGW never came to fruition, which merely led to more predictions.

The natural cycle of CO2 contains 3% human emissions . There is a 10% variation in the quantity of CO2 in the cycle, so it is not surprising that the human contribution of 3% is insignificant.

@Roses1:
You are absolutely right, Infra-red radiation travels at the same speed as other types of electromagnetic radiation. I should have infra-red radiation is lower energy.

My confusion with water vapour still stands. Yes water vapour falls as rain but then it is replenished by evaporation. Just as plants adsorb CO2 but it is replenished by mammals. There is a cycle.

With regard to drought in WA I can only offer my commiserations. I was in Perth in early February and the drought there is terrible. But Australia is a land of drought and flooding plain. Here in Sydney we broke the drought by building a salt-water recycling plant. Sydney's water supply had reached its lowest every recorded level of 33% in February 2007, the plant was announced and since then it has not stopped raining. The current level is supposedly 76% but given the rain we had recently no-one believes it. And the plant is going full bore providing 15% of Sydney's water supply.

Curmug;
Really you are showing your ignorance yet again.
Global warming results in extreme weather conditions, NOT local temperature rises.
Do keep up with the rest of the class, even if it is for slow learners.

Rich2, curmug is not deliberately muddling the experts, he is just muddled.

Cheryl. Feel free to “nick it”. Its not often I write anything that any one wants to nick. I fell flattered …… I think.

rich2
no, the finding most definitely extends to scientists with the important exception, as I noted, of where they are using a theory with a track record. So it does not apply to scientists using qantum dynamics or newtonian mechanics (on simple systems), or relativity and others. Those are theories with proven track records.

The idea is to use the theory to make forecasts, and when the forecasts don't work, look again at the theory. That is the way to establish a track record. Instead they are using climate theory to validate the forecasts. The computer models themselves are, in fact, about the only proof that part of the current climate warmth is due to industrial gases. That and scientists asking what else could it be due to?

There is even evidence that scientists have been trying to make the system (the climate) results fit the theory.

Some of this is excusable as this sort of large scale forecasting exercise is almost unknown in science before this, and the study of forecasting is a business subject - its in marketing - so scientists have no real idea that they are breaking all the rules. But they are.

The subject of forecasting is also unusual in that it has gods. They are related to Murphy of Murphy's Law (anything that can go wrong..). And they are cruel and vindictive, and they will wreak their vengence on scientists who have not paid them proper respect. Best to be on the moral high ground when it happens.

Just a point of clarification - tornadoes occur because of differences in temperature, not necessairly because of colder or warmer climate. There are cold air temperate tornadoes associated with cold fronts as well as the more severe tornadoes that occur when warm tropical air meets arctic air over the plains of the US.

This has been a severe tornado season in the US, but I don't think you can use this to either prove or disprove climate change.