No debate says Poirot; there can never be a debate with a closed mind, which is the AGW collective. As for the science Jo Nova lists the papers which disprove AGW:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/

Some of those papers were analysed here:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14179

And in slightly more detail here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-man-made-global-warming-been.html

And here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-global-warming-been-disproved-part-2.html

Poirot, you don't understand any of this, you make no effort to understand it and berate anyone who does try to understand it.

You are a zealot.

cohenite,

I have to admit that the difference between you and I is that I don't pretend to be a climate scientist. You, on the other hand, pretend you understand the science, You link to blogs run by non-climate scientists to disprove global warming"...and time and time again you are shot down in flames. It's all so very Daffy Duck...and I'm apparently dis-dis-dis-despicable!

I don't have to be climate scientist to analyse your tactics, or to read a graph - or to pick holes in your commentary.

"You're a zealot".....why thank you, cohenite.

It's duck season.

cohenite,

Here's a good example of the "expertise" that emanates from places like WUWT:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/oh-pleeze/

I DON'T pretend I'm a climate scientist Poirot; my expertise lies elsewhere; and it is an expertise which provides contemperaneous skills for interpreting the worth of the climate science.

I mean it is just pitiful that anyone who hasn't been given the imprimatur of climate scientist is scorned for doing research into the validity of the climate science.

Anyway, the hypocrisy of this position is demonstrated by the fact that real climate scientists like Christy, Spencer, Lindzen , Fu, Franks, Curry etc are treated with equivalent scorn for not believing the official AGW belief. So, it doesn't matter that I'm not a climate scientist because climate scientists are trewated the same way as me; we're all heretics.

You link to tamino again Poirot after I have pointed out how Foster makes profound errors in his papers, yet you still accept him as an authority.

The problem Poirot is because you accept people like tamino unquestioningly it makes you stupid [I'm assuming you are not stupid] and you can't see the tricks and flaws of what tamino is doing.

For instance tamino criticises WUWT for saying sunspot activity has been rising for 110 years and then he presents a moving average graph, NOT a trend graph to defeat that point; a trend graph shows this:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/mean:12/normalise/scale:5/trend

Look at that Poirot; sunspot activity is increasing over the 110 year period and correlates perfectly with tamino's preferred temperature record.

Can you understand tamino's sleight of hand Poirot? Of course not, and you don't care.

Poirot, you can be a fool but don't expect others to be.

There's really no "debate" concerning the science, cohenite. There are climate scientists who reach conclusions based on empirical evidence...and then there are people (usually non-scientists like yourself) who twist, cherry pick, ad hom and just plain deny - all the while pretending they understand the science.

HEAR HEAR

No debate says Poirot; there can never be a debate with a closed mind

You have to have a mind to close?

I have to admit that the difference between you and I is that I don't pretend to be a climate scientist. You, on the other hand, pretend you understand the science, You link to blogs run by non-climate scientists to disprove global warming"...and time and time again you are shot down in flames. It's all so very Daffy Duck...and I'm apparently dis-dis-dis-despicable!

HEAR HEAR AGAIN

cohenite, the only proof that will satisfy you about AGW is when the Arctic ice has disappeared completely in the summer and ships are sailing over the site of the North Pole (probably within a few years) and then you will still come up with a lot of scientific gibberish to prove it really isn't happening.

Cohenite. After 30 odd pages of debate, the conclusion is 'the debate is over' sigh.....

The 'anti science' group you are dealing with, the science 'deniers' you attempt co 'convert' from their religion, as proposed in the original post by Don Aitken, is a lost cause. These are people who admire and respect the actions, beliefs and scientific process of Gleick, Parncutt, Gore, Mann etc etc.

I am not an economist, but I do understand economics enough to question the skill of Minister Wayne Swann, I am not a banker, but I do recognise the operation of fixed and variable interest rates, I am not a scientist, but I do understand the scientific process.

I am however, a degreed (amongst other disciplins), environmental manager. I do understand the enormous complexities of the biosphere. Recognising these complexities I would never assert that the 'science is settled' in any discipline. On four separate occasions I have personally experienced species, declared extinct by the 'settled science', have had the temerity to 're appear' In places that they just shouldn't be!

Guys, gravity is the only scientific conclusion I would consider 'settled'. I have tested the hypothesis, personally, on numerous occasions.