This is a great article.

No political correctness, skirting around the truth to show undue respect for the fraud backers.

The AGW assertion has a failed basis, trivially true but of no significance.

The effect of human emissions on climate is trivial and not measurable.

All the fraud backers have weighed today in with denigration of the author, in their outrage at him telling the truth about AGW.

Not one of them has put up a basis for acceptance of the AGW hypothesis, because there is no such basis.

Every one of them has a criticism, of no significance to the false assertion that that human activity has a measurable effect on global climate.

Even the disgraced bonmot has weighed in again with pointless and derogatory remarks.

By the way csteele, you seem to have missed the fact that the trend for the last 2000 years is a cooling trend.

J. Esper et al., Orbital forcing of tree-ring data, Nature Climate Change, 8 July 2012
doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE158

csteele
this sentence "but the denying a warmer global temperature causing more of the primary GHG water vapour in the atmosphere will not lead to higher temperatures still leaves you in the 'intelligent design' clique".

Again, sorry but the point I'm making has slipped by you mostly because, I strongly suspect, you don't understand the basis of your own side's arguemnts. The warming due to CO2 is one thing but the extra warming forecast is due to a feedback effect involving additional water vapour in the atmosphere (note the additional) that remains entirely unproven.

So you understand.. initial warming plus feedback warming equals total forecast warming. I'm not denying that water vapour warms the atmosphere. In fact its far more important than CO2, which is why they get such a large feedback warming from the CO2 effect. I won't go into all the details of this, but can you point to any evidence that water vapour in the atmosphere is trending the way the models say that it should? If you can find that information then you're adding value.

Thanks Leo,

But if you need a few more pointers on how you can more comprehensively reject climate science (although I see you're on the right track : ) - check out John Cook's guide below.

http://theconversation.edu.au/how-do-people-reject-climate-science-9065

Dear Curmudgeon,

You asked;

“can you point to any evidence that water vapour in the atmosphere is trending the way the models say that it should?”

Sure. I will even explain how easy it is.

First you go to google and type in the words; “total atmospheric moisture”.

There you will find many scholarly articles on the subject. Pick any one that has at least 50 citations for safety sake. I chose the second cab off the rank. It was 'Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content' by Santer et al 2007.

Here is the abstract;

“Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988. Results from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone. In a formal detection and attribution analysis using the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated “fingerprint” pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor is identifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data. Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggest that this fingerprint “match” is primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases and not to solar forcing or recovery from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Our findings provide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signal in the moisture content of earth's atmosphere.”

Can I help with anything else?

Dear Alice,

Hansen like Sagan cut his teeth on planetary atmospheres, particularly of Venus. Although early calculations of the planet by Wildt showed that GH physics would have the temperature above the boiling point of water a figure of 600K derived from preliminary observations seemed impossible. Sagan made his name as a doctoral student by solving the problem in an "embarrassingly crude" fashion by utilising steam boiler engineering calculations. The empirical verifications of his projections were later completed by Russian probes.

The basic physics is sound and I am more than happy to listen to reasons why projections may be impacted but only if supported by the same rigour.

Is Leo Lane one of Cheryl's pseudonyms? I venture to ask because of the similarity in style - gratuitously insulting everyone in sight while offering precious little in the way of argument or evidence.

Thanks for the interesting link Poirot - glad you rejoined the fray to drop it in.

On the CO2 front, I'd have to agree it isn't a pollutant, but messing with the amount of atmospheric CO2 messes with the world as we know it. More CO2 may result in more biomass but it is different biomass - such as higher grain production but with lower protein content, which is no help in feeding more people.

csteele, you are not an honest broker; you say:

"Cohenite basically rejects the notion of a green house effect"

That's a lie.

I selected 1997 because that is the year agronomist picked; climatically 1997 is a 'special' year for reasons discussed here:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1650v3.pdf

Relying on a linear trend to depict climate varibles which are at best cyclical but primarily both chaotic and complex is statistically ambitious.

In the spirit of your patronage though I will forgive your egregious 'verballing' of my position and leave you to discuss the validity of describing climate by the presence of 'breaks' in a superficially oscillatory but basically stochastic climate system.