" .. the proponents of AGW ... have engineered statements from prestigious bodies to the effect that human emissions affect climate, but these statements are unsupported by science."

Leo Lane, Thursday, 17 Nov, 11:16:52am

"engineered"?? Conspiracy?? Seems paranoid. You might do better to go beyond bare assertions.

This seems realistic - "Human emissions of carbon dioxide comprise 3% of the natural CO2 cycle. The CO2 cycle has a 10% natural variation."

I have seen a good argument that about 28% of human CO2 emissions accumulate each year - on average ~ 0.9% (~1%) of CO2 production per annum.

That is quite a lot over 50-100 yrs - 50-100%.

A key issue is the rate atmospheric CO2 is rising: beyond what has happened naturally in the past.

And CO2 is mainly a marker; water vapour is more significant as a greenhouse gas.

Steven,

"The rise in average temperature for a doubling from present already elevated levels would be less than one degree Kelvin."

No, it wouldn't. It may well be less than one degree Celsius, but it CANNOT be less than one degree Kelvin, and as a physicist you should know that. Whatever happened to the good old days when physics nerds were all anal retentive?

This message has been brought to you by Apostrophe Man's loyal sidekick, Correct Units Boy.

Leo Lane,

"You are ahead of yourself, Steven. It is not up to the realists to disprove AGW, it is up to the proponents of AGW to produce proof that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, which so far they have failed to do."

You've got your burden of proof all arse about there, champ. Science works by falsification - by attempting to disprove theories rather than prove them (which is impossible).

Stephen you've got to remove that rose coloured filter from your glasses mate.

The fact that some of those arguing prow AGW are respected friends must make it harder, but it does not make them right.

Sure it is only a small percentage of these people that are actually con men, but you can't read any of the climate gate stuff without seeing. Still many others are guilty of group think, & like a hungry dog, just can not drop the bone.

Yes many actually believe, as Leo's reference to their prediction of a troposphere hot spot, but when it was found this did not exist, one wrote a pile of rubbish about wind patterns proving it did, even if it can't be measured. Didn't some question the behaviour of thermometers at altitude too?

Then we have the heat hidden in the deep. They must have believed it, or they wouldn't have spent a fortune of our money on the Argo buoys.
Now they want to apply a pile of corrections to the negative results they have produced.

Mate even you have to start to ask why. Why are they always wrong, & why are their corrections always up on current readings, & down on historical records. Do think about it.

Have you ever thought about civil law cases. Every one in court believes they are right. They have probably spent much money confirming they are. But, half of them are wrong. They loose the case. Your mates are in that misguided group. Many probably want to get off the bus, but severe career injury awaits if they jump.

I find that it is usually those with least invested who are the clearest thinkers, & those who are insulted by being fed bullsh1t, who are most strident in their disagreement. Sorry I'm insulted. I took their rubbish as gospel for years, then I looked at it.

A recent OLO article (by a "professional" who is also a sceptic) was compelling and I commend it to you Stephen. One thing it spoke of and which I (admittedly an amateur sceptic) find evidence of in your piece is "confirmation bias". That said I think your article is a decent attempt at achieving what is missing in the AGW/CO2/GlobalArmageddon debate - i.e. an actual debate.

But what I would find most compelling (and as a voter I would have thought Governments would want me to be involved in some small way in determining what is a reasonable response based on actual evidence) would be a professionally moderated debate of professionals, sans mud and insult.

Some sort of forum where all the most compelling arguments either way could be discussed and debated in a way that most punters could understand.

Is that too much to ask?

rpg

I think you have a poor understanding of scientific publishing. It's a competitive business. So is science itself but that's another matter.

A paper that provided the magic bullet that killed AGW would be the paper of the year, perhaps even the decade. Any editor worth his salt would drool at the prospect. His journal's ranking in the Science Citation Index would skyrocket.

In the exremely unlikely event that all scientific journals rejected a solid paper of that nature the fossil fuel industry's PR machine would swing into action and we'd know all about it.

Know, that's not why the dog is not barking.

Bitey,

I also wish we could have a civilsed discussion and I do wish sceptics would stop already with the aspersions of bad faith unless they have solid evidence - as in the cases of Phil Jones of the CLU and the mendacious Ian Plimer.

Most climatologists are not like Phil Jones. Most sceptics are not like Ian Plimer.

I'm out of words and my day job beckons. I shall try to reply to others in more detail over the weekend.

Acolyte, how often does it have to be falsified? I thought it should be once, but obviously that is not enough. Should it be monthly, weekly, daily or hourly?

I think we are, conservatively, up to weekly falsification of AGW, but Steven tries to give the impression that AGW has not been shown to be without a scientific base.

A hypothesis which would stand up far better than AGW, is that our warming is halted, and we now face cooling. We may be able to avert it if we output enough CO2, and we need to encourage its production.

A silly theory, having the virtue only of making more sense than the AGW hypothesis, and having more science to back it.

If we had 12,500 people attend a lie fest in Bali, to be addressed only by those who backed the theory it would run better than the tattered old AGW scam, which had that advantage and a lot more. Some of the lie fests did not go so well because they were frozen out, or at Copenhagen, those who did not leave promptly were iced in.

It is settled science that climate follows natural cycles. There has been no change demonstrated which is attributable to human emissions. That would come within my definition of a smoking gun. It does not seem to come within Steven's definition, or perhaps he is so ill informed that he is unaware of it.

Human emissions have not been shown to have any measurable effect on climate. How about asking for a smoking gun which would show otherwise, Steven? You would make more sense if you did, but you are well aware that there is no scientific basis for AGW.

If Julia Gillard were seen to urinate in the Harbour at Kirribilli, all those who observed it could say that she had polluted the Harbour. The effect, however, would not be scientifically measurable. Human emissions are observed going into the atmosphere. Their effect is not measurable, and in regard to climate, their effect is negligible. No action on human emissions is justified.