Jeremy, your criticism of Middleton and nova is disingenuous; Middleton's article has a bibliography of 23 peer reviewed papers or official data sources; are you dismissing them or just Middleton's view based on those sources; if the latter then read Middleton's piece because several of the papers are the basis of his view.

Jo Nova is a scientist full-stop. Just because you don't like her position of AGW doesn't change that fact. And again Jo is very particular about basing her view on creditable scientific papers; look again at the link.

Bugsy; there is no contradiction; the AF is defined in the paper; the last graph compares the amount of CO2 available in the atmosphere from human sources [the AF] with the increase in atmospheric CO2; the result of the comparison is plain; humans cannot be causing all the increase in atmospheric CO2. If that makes AGW look any more ridiculous then it already does then so be it.

Hopefully now that he has proven the world’s entire climate scientist wrong he could move on to curing cancer. Perhaps he can convince us all that cancer doesn't kill people it's just an indication someone is going to die.
I sure Curmudgeon and cohenite will throw their support behind it what would those nasty scientist know.

Oh dear it's just another hack job by not climate scientist.

The only issue for me here is whether (1) to swot up on the theory that plant stomata provide the best historical record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and then, like Cox and Cormack, arrive at a ‘personal opinion’ on the topic, or (2) to apply Occam’s Razor and go for the simplest explanation, that the absolutely certain increases in manmade emissions are causing the concentration in the atmosphere to go up, or (3) to do what most rational folk would, which is to expect that real climate scientists will already have thought about this stuff and are telling us their understanding via the usual official, considered and peer-reviewed channels.

Actually, on reflection, number 3 is a bit unreasonable, given the thousands of weird views about climate that sit on servers spread over the globe. There’s a good chance that real climate scientists can’t be bothered. I suppose that’s a problem, since lack of disagreement might be interpreted as acquiescence.

But honestly, a bit of humility from those who busily develop their own personal notions of how climate works would be in order

I think this opinion piece highlights the confusion felt in the skeptics camp.

The way AF is described in the paper is very different to the way it is discussed in the final paragraphs of opinion piece.

The last graph shows an increase in emissions that far exceeds the actual increase in atmospheric concentration, which is what I believe the fact that Mark 'curmudgeon' was referring to, i.e the emissions seem to be disappearing somewhere into a carbon sink. Yet, this is not what you argue, you seem to believe that the increase in atmospheric concentrations cannot be explained by the increwase in emissions (somehow?), even though the increase in emissions greatly exceeds the actual increase in concentration.

Mark 'curmudgeon' Lawson is arguing that the CO2 sinks are taking up more CO2 as we are emitting it, whereas Anthony 'cohenite' Cox, appears to arguing that cannot be possibly happening and anthropogenic emissions cannot explain the increase and that nature must actually be belching CO2 out.

Which is it? Please discuss amongst yourselves and present us with a clear answer to this confusion.

jeremy,

You say; “Is there anything to suggest this information and analysis has any scientific credibility?” and “(I acknowledge that I haven't followed up all the links in the article - there are too many - I just want ones to reliable scientific research)”.

You rightly raise the issues of scientific credibility and ask for links to “only reliable research”.

Your problem is the same as mine. I’m not a scientist and cannot determine which have scientific credibility however, If I were to ask for only those links that offer reliable scientific research I am entirely dependent upon someone else’s opinion as to what they see as reliable. If you are happy to accept an opinion, go for it. Otherwise develop your own opinion based upon other than the science.

There is a better way for us non-scientists.

If the politicians in the 1990’s were presented with the case that exists today for CAGW, would they have still legislated for action? You might also ask yourself what existed in support of CAGW prior to Climategate and what exists today. I can point you to what is now missing; you can work out the rest.

UN IPCC assessment AR 5 – alarmism now inconclusive
UK Met Office declaring no warming- alarmism now inconclusive
Alarmist Predictions - failed to eventuate
A replacement for Kyoto – there isn’t one
Funding through Green Trading Markets - Collapsed
Renewable Industry – Collapsed
Affiliated Renewable Industry dependents, financiers, employees and suppliers – Gone
Green Jobs - Gone
Scientific consensus – a fraud
Government rebates – Gone or termination dates set
Public Broadcaster Credibility on AGW - BBC 28 Gate (Google it) – Credibility Gone
Governmental capacity to fund renewable capital investments – declining rapidly under austerity and debt.
Public interest or support for green initiatives – declining at 10 percent p.a.
Threat from growing competitive industrial growth based upon cheap energy – Growing exponentially.
Home grown opposition to commercial opportunism in renewables – Growing

Without these CAGW science cannot have credibility because it couldn’t convince any of its own, therefore it can’t convince me.

NASA scientists say 2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record.

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis Tuesday that compares temperatures around the globe in 2012 to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago.