Peter A

What planet are you from? How long have you been visiting Earth?

The doomsayers, of which you are clearly one, want to talk about irrelevancies like temperature trends. They cannot provide a persuasive argument about the costs and benefits of AGW, nor of the solutions they advocate (actually, they demand).

The doomsayers have been advocating completely irrational policies to combat AGW for 20 years. They have no hope of working and never did have.

The problem to date has been the incessant, strident, determined advocacy to impose ‘big brother knows best’, centrally implemented and controlled policies (big government, big regulation, enormous compliance costs, international agreements to targets, timetables, carbon pricing, global taxes, etc). That is what the climate scientists, IPCC, environmental NGOs and Left leaning ideologues have been advocating since before the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.

This approach has clearly failed, as rational people have been arguing it would all along. It is the wrong approach. The evidence that approach won’t work in the real world is overwhelming. The longer we keep pushing this approach the longer we will delay cutting global GHG emissions.

The AGW doomsayers are the same people, (mostly) who are anti-markets and advocate the big brother knows best policies. They are the people who are responsible for us being well behind where we would be if they hadn’t continually blocked progress.

Peter. A. Hmmmm where to start? Peter Lang made a good start questioning which particular planet you are residing on.

"In the mean time the world is warming and the deniers never put up credible evidence that it is not due to man"

You are the one proposing this hypothesis, where is the 'credible evidence' that it is due to man? Human activity is purported to have added 19ppm co2. Are you proposing that this infintesimal amount is changing the climat?

Isn't there evidence that the global average temperature has 'flatlined' for the past 16 years?

"They then start calling people names"

I have been called a 'denier', I have been likened to a supporter of pedophelia, I have been 'researched' and found to deny a link between tobacco smoking and cancer, believe the moon landing was faked etc.etc. It has recently been recommended by your lot that I be executed as a mass murderer! phuleeeeez.......
.
" the majority of anti AGW web sites are funded by the fossil fuel industry"

Evidence please.

Honestly, I am embarrassed on your behalf.

In answer to EmperorJulian, it is pointless again producing "evidence" to convince him and other deniers of AGW when the ignore any evidence produced and continue to deny.
They only have to look at the evidence of arctic ice rapidly diminishing and also glaciers worldwide.
Also the link below shows what has happened, though I know that a denier will dispute this so why argue with them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
As for "insurance" or "precaution principle," well why worry?
It is obvious that the bulk of the population is ignoring AGW and will continue to do so.
The inevitable result will be catastrophic overpopulation, which is the root cause of AGW and will bring it's own solution, a cull due to lack of resources.
So if you cannot face the consequences of your inaction, well then continue to take refuge in your denial and then you will be able to cope with life as it really is.
There are some who argue here and only do so to be augmentative i.e. trolls. there are some who are paid to cause confusion by the big companies but I do not think they would be active here but rather spread their doubts on blogs and articles.
There are also those who argue here and are of a lower IQ and so unable to comprehend the science and so discredit it.
I am sorry for you all.

Warmair, you link to Harries 2001 which says there is:

“direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect”

In Harries 2003; the statement is qualified to there is:

“evidence of a change in the clear-sky greenhouse radiative forcing due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations between those years.”

Then, in 2004, Harries further qualified his position:

“the IMG sampling is too sparse and yields results that differ from the true case by up to 6.0 K. Under cloud-free conditions the agreement with the true field for both instruments improves to within a few tenths of a kelvin. Comparisons with the observed IMG IRIS difference spectra show that these uncertainties due to sampling presently limit the conclusions that can be drawn about climatically significant feedback processes.”

Harries in fact demonstrates the inability of AGW ‘science’ to properly model clouds.

Harries has been rebutted by Lindzen and Choi and Spencer and Braswell, whose papers are described here:

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

And by Knox and Douglass, whose paper is described here:

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

This is so tedious; AGW is junk; and the best it can produce is the evidence free drivel of the likes of PeterA who says:

“There is not one peer reviewed anti AGW paper that has stood up to scrutiny, out of near 14000 papers on climate change only 24 do not support and they have been debunked.”

I have given many peer-reviewed papers in the above links which have not been debunked; PeterA should give us all a laugh and show how they have been debunked.

And finally Lepage with his link to, wait for it, wiki, and the amalgam of Holocene temperatures; even then he hasn’t the wit to see that the average of this ensemble shows a Holocene peak well above today’s temperatures. In any event I discussed the Holocene in the context of the GISP2 ice core data above which was obviously too hard for LePage since he hasn’t referred to it at all just gone off on a typical troll frolic of disconnected rambling.

As I say, tedious.

Raycom, you have missed my point entirely.

As I stated in my first post, there is no proof that AGW is a certainty, but the vast bulk of evidence, and evidence still being gathered, forms an increasingly coherent picture. It is not mistaken to label the general acceptance of this evidence, by the vast majority of climate scientists, worldwide, as a consensus. The political force of the word is well-founded, on careful science.

Unlike the law, science does not declare a verdict as beyond a reaonable doubt, but plainly the AGW denialists are becoming more and more isolated, into an intellectual backwater where they inform each other of facts which are unconvincing and arguments which are spent.

Earlier, I posted a link to an easily accessed article, in one of the world's most prestigious English-language general science journals. Read it and criticise it, if you like.

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.

The idea that AGW is not happening is rampant among posts like yours, in response to articles like Don's, but these posts are more and more rarely taken seriously as science. Knowledgeable, skeptical experts, trained to criticise and apply the methods of experimental science, accept the weight of evidence supporting AGW.

What I see in the posts above are arguments from some people who confuse climate with weather, some people who demean scientists as careerists or conspirators, some who cherrypick arguments from ongoing resolutions of evidence, some (like yourself) who demand yet another quantum of evidence to dispute.

I recommend that you and other anti-AGW posters here take your disputes to a site that currently lists 173 arguments against AGW, and also rebuts them:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Enjoy your day.

Quote Prompete
You are the one proposing this hypothesis, where is the 'credible evidence' that it is due to man? Human activity is purported to have added 19ppm co2. Are you proposing that this infintesimal amount is changing the climat?
End Quote
_____________________________________________________________________________________
How do you arrive at the figure of 19ppm ?
The data as far as I am aware is that the CO2 levels were about 280 ppm in 1880
today they are 393 an increase of 113 ppm even if we assume that fossil fuel burning only accounts for 1/3 of the emissions ie 38ppm, we are still confident that all the 113ppm can be attributed to human activities. While we are on the subject don't forget that methane levels have also doubled in the same time frame.

http://co2now.org/