Dear Leo Lane,

You wrote;

"Just give one study which measures the effect of man made emissions on global climate."

And,

"Fancy giving Hansen as a reference. He did not say it in a scientific paper, but in one of his misinforming articles"

Strewth laddie you do prattle on in absolute ignorance don't you. Have you even read Hansen's 1981 paper? It appears not.

"The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

It is pretty hard to get something plainer than that in scientific parlance.

Now could I invite you to do a little more homework before shooting your mouth off so I don't have to waste another post.

Casteele,

You are offering (as Hansen was) correlation as though it were causation. It's not of course. The increase that Hansen found is also consistent with a return from the Little Ice Age, and with Martians aiming heat rays on Earth. What you were asked for is the proof of a causal hypothesis. I would be glad to see it, too. I haven't found one yet.

csteele; you dismiss G&T's 2nd paper on the basis of Halpern's paper which was in response to G&T's FIRST paper. G&T replied to Halpern's comment on their FIRST paper here:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0421.pdf

You make the smug comment about me not understanding 1/2 of what I have posted; at least I can get the papers correct.

But since you have thrown out the challenge, can you in YOUR OWN words sum up how Halpern concludes that G&T are incorrect in their presentation of the defects of the Greenhouse effect?

Once you do that, then we can move onto G&T's 2nd paper, about which Halpern has been conspicuously silent.

And please, refrain from smugness; if and when you can point out where G&T have gone wrong in their integration of the Barometric Formulae, all of which are well known in describing physical processes, then you can adopt the arrogance which defines the otherwise witless comments of those who defend AGW.

Dear cohenite,

Me smug?

Some examples of smugness;

“Hansen is a scaremonger and agitprop; his role in perpetuating the outrage of AGW is as culpable as anyones' has been. Just recently he wrote this piece on "extreme weather" the new scare tactic along with ocean acidification of the alarmists:”

and

“None of the manifest defects of Hnsen's scare piece are picked up by the MSM; the big con of AGW has moved on to the next lie and yet we have the likes of JohnBennets rabbiting on about frogs. Well the frog isn't a frog, it's a toad and it's AGW and no princess is going to change this toad into a prince.”

What make you lot so enjoyable is you go all attack dog from the get go then when someone has a nibble back you go all whimpery and cry foul.

Suck it up princess.

I didn't have the wrong paper it was just that I couldn't get past the rot in the first one. But to cheer you up, since you have gotten yourself all sulky, I have had a look.

“On the one hand, since the venusian atmosphere is opaque to visible light, the central assumption of the greenhouse hypotheses is not obeyed.”
Gerlich and Tscheuschner, On The Barometric Formulas page 12..13

Please follow this link to pictures from the Soviet Venus landers.

http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogVenus.htm

You will not only see pictures from the surface of Venus, albeit a little yellow tinged, but also spectra for the 360-830nm wave lengths. Visible light is 390-750nm.

Why on earth do you persist with these dudes?

Just to aid your scientific literacy 'opaque' means “Impenetrable by light; neither transparent nor translucent.”

Incidentally Halpern is hardly going to respond to a paper that is still unpublished. The only reason he and the others responded to the first was it managed to get itself into the International Journal of Modern Physics (B). If this paper gets published as is in the same journal I will promise to take a year sabbatical from OLO.

Now go hush for a bit.

Sulky eh? Not me, not when I have dilettantes like you to play with; you say:

"You will not only see pictures from the surface of Venus, albeit a little yellow tinged, but also spectra for the 360-830nm wave lengths. Visible light is 390-750nm."

You idiot; those pictures are taken on the SURFACE of Venus, not from the TOP of the atmosphere looking down to the surface! Even wiki gets that:

"but the surface of Venus is obscured by an atmosphere opaque to visible light."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observations_and_explorations_of_Venus

Smug and stupid is not a good combination.

“Have you even read Hansen's 1981 paper?” asks csteele.

Has he ever read the paper? Here are a couple of quotes from it:

“The major difficulty in accepting this theory has been the absence of observed warming coincident with the historic CO2 increase.” . (page 957)
and “The time history of the warming obviously does not follow the course of the CO2 increase (Fig 1) indicating that other factors must affect global mean temperature.” (Page 961)

What csteele has read is a dishonest beat up of Hansen’s paper, and taken it as fact.

He should never do that when reading material produced by AGW fraud backers. He should have read past the abstract, and at least looked at some of the paper. The abstract, on its own, can be quite misleading, for a scientific document.

Hansen's scientific presentation suffers from his promotional bias.

Whether csteele should be given the benefit of the doubt and considered ignorant rather than dishonest, I will leave to you.

I consider that we have the necessary material to show that it is one or the other.