What does this article contribute to the climate discussion?

It seems very odd that a self-confessed 'empiricist' would argue from such obviously false analogy.
Then again, it wasn't really written for a general audience, was it? More a preaching to the choir. And the choir sings back...

As and aside, I love how Don waxes lyrical on his history in 'political science' and then calls himself an 'empiricist' to then proclaim to know how science works and proceed to trash actual physical scientists' synthesised interpretations of real-world data as if it was a sort of religion. How many actual science papers have you written Don?

You're a real piece of work.

Bugsy wades in with:

"actual physical scientists' synthesised interpretations of real-world data"

Which really means:

Computer jockeys making up stuff.

Incidentally, what do you do Bugs, apart from dishing out 2nd rate snark?

Sir Vivor: "Additionally, I suggest you go to work and provide experimental evidence, historical evidence, computer modelling, that convincingly supports the idea that AGW is not taking place."

It is unscientific to argue that the AGW hypothesis is true until such time as it is proven wrong. The onus of proof rests firmly upon the proposer of the hypothesis, not with its refutation.

The warmists have failed to produce that proof , after searching for over 20 years.

Your suggestion that the scepticalscience website provides solid rebuttals to questions about AGW, is tongue in cheek. The rebuttals to the questions are typical of what to expect on twitter.

2nd rate? Compared to what? The little ad homs from you that brighten my day?

I'm somewhat flattered, you're the first person that actually asked what 'I do'. I don't really talk about it, but I 'do' science matey. Actual science. It's in my job description and job title and everything.

And I'm infinitely more published in science journals than you, literally, as the comparison of any real number versus zero is an infinite ratio.

The only reason I comment here is that I get a bit upset when people who are obviously massively deficient in their science training pretend that they know everything that scientists do, how they think and also want to rewrite history for their political prejudices.

Compared to what actual scientists are doing, you guys are playing Lego.

Warmair. Apologies for not getting back sooner (had run out of response allowance on OLO)

"How do you arrive at the figure of 19ppm ?"

"anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major input/output from natural sources (~95%). Hence, anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapor."

Compete peer reviewed reference source at

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

Regards.

"I'm somewhat flattered, you're the first person that actually asked what 'I do'. I don't really talk about it, but I 'do' science matey. Actual science. It's in my job description and job title and everything."

And you're modest too.

What sort of science?

Drawing on your superior level of 'science' would you care to pick an aspect of AGW which you think is proved and say why so us plebs can tick the box on that and move on?