cohenite,

"...this means that the increase in CO2 has had NO temperature effect since 1977; thus conclusively disproving AGW."

Da dah!

(next you'll be telling us that neutrinos travel faster than light)

Poirot, Superposition, an essential quality of quantum physics, relies on FTL conditions.

You and bonmot have presented yourselves as knowledgeable on matters of science, yet you act like teenagers and have never presented any scientific evidence for your believe in AGW.

Bonmot is obviously a troll and a tedious one at that so we'll leave him to his feckless stupidity; but what about you; are you going to contribute something meaningful or do I have to get banned again for accurately describing your comments.

cohenite,

bonmot is the one who is knowledgeable about climate science, and he has presented plenty of evidence on this forum - most of which has been greeted with ridicule and derision. If he or I resort to "antics" occasionally, it's only from sheer exasperation.

Hey Cohenite

how about this for starters:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

tends to blow all of your accusations and assumptions out of the water, but then I am sure you will have some conspiracy site reference to troll through which you can counter this with, by the way it is peer reviewed and published.

This document was written by scientists from the Department of Biology, Stanford University, Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Palo Alto, and the Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, I am sure they know nothing about what they are talking about!

Have another go if you must!

Cohenite,

I have just spent about 5 hours going through your latest attempt at debunking AGW; unfortunately the link you provided runs almost 100% counter to what you claim.

Your link to: http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/2011-09.pdf

Goes far from disproving AGW, if you read it in full you will come to the conclusion that overlaying a basic economic/financial précis to disprove AGW is fatally flawed on page 7.

As a marine scientist I have no problem with the physics, mathematics, statistical analysis etc.

The argument put forward is conclusive in some key areas; however the conclusions drawn are a complete 'long-bow' in disproving any AGW premise.

If you need to rely on 'Popular Mechanics' to provide proof positive of the inaccuracy or AGW you really need to take a good long and perhaps hard look at your overall evidence process.

The article, although well written, has a number of fatal flaws, in particular basing their argument on central and mid latitudinal regions, for which much is already know, and taken into account. No data is provided at the higher latitudes where extreme forcings are clearly taking place, one wonders why this was not also explored, and I think the reason will be evident to any genuine scientific scrutiny.

Cherry picking certain East Anglia data and other information within the article clearly puts a specific slant on the conclusions made.

Economic/financial theory might be ok, however understanding the forcings and logarithmic function, vital in climate and weather analysis is clearly lacking.

I know you have a particular bent on AGW and no doubt this response will not dispel your particular 'fervent support' against AGW, perhaps you could consider 'climate change' as something that does not only include warming but one that exponentially results in clear and undisputed forcing on climatic model simulations and the reality of our changing climate.

I find your blind faith interesting; most straw men fail to look at the entire picture when ones mind is already made up.

Back to the drawing board me thinks!

Geoff

For the benefit of those who think biofuels such as ethanol are the
answer to our fuel problem here is an interesting article.
It is US based, of course as most of this info comes from there.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/sustainable-farming/corn-ethanol-ze0z1205zsie.aspx

It does point up the poor ERoEI of ethanol. Sugar cane is better perhaps.