Hasbeen says:

"Tombee the physics I'm seeing is the fact that CO2 is displacing water vapor in the upper atmosphere. As water is a much stronger GHG than CO2 this will lead to cooling of the upper atmosphere."

That's exactly right; water levels are falling, something that Miskolzi predicted back in 2004 and confirmed in 2010:

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/16193427/157753127/name/miskolczi.PDF

Note specifically Figures 9 and 10.

Miskolzi is confirmed by the absence of a THS, an essential prediction of AGW, and in turn confirms the operation of Maximum Entropy production in the Earth's atmosphere.

As for Arrhenius; Arrhenius made many mistakes:

1 Arrhenius believed that glass enclosures trapped infrared radiation, thus raising the temperature inside. We now know that the absence of convection is the mechanism of greenhouse heating.

2 Arrhenius also believed that CO2 had the same property as glass. But glass and CO2 ABSORB and EMIT infrared, they do not repel it.

3 Arrhenius used measurements of radiation limited to 9.7u and was not measuring the heating effect of CO2 which absorbs primarily at 14.77u; he was in fact measuring water vapour’s heating effect.

4 Arrhenius used as the source for his thermal radiation a source that was at 100C; the radiative spectrum from this source includes the 4.2u wavelength of CO2 that is not part of the Earth’s radiative spectrum, outside the lip of a few volcanoes.

Still Arrhenius was a good scientist and measured the log decline of the heating effect of incremental increases of CO2, something AGW disavows.

"out of 12,000 scientific papers published on the issue of climate change between 1991 and 2011, 97.1% of the authors who stated a position on the evidence for global warming endorsed the view that humans are to blame."

And what precentage were employed by government?

The anti-human AGW cultists have lost this argument over and over and over again in here. Once we put aside their techniques of:
- assuming it from the start,
- posting links in substitution of argument,
- defining science by what the authorities are saying rather than what the data are saying
- concluding values from factual propositions
- assuming any human impact is negative
- ignoring the blatant charlatanry of the self-interested technocrats and their neat tricks like REVERSING THE SIGNS of their data(!) (what ole Intellectual Honesty Poirot calls "science")
- assuming a Gods-eye view of the planet and their fellow human beings
- assuming the state represents the best interests of society
- assuming the State's superiority at economising scarce resources - BWAHAHAHAHAHA
- assuming they know what the temperature of the planet should be
- assuming they know what the distribution and abundance of species should be
- assuming they can fine-tune the weather in 5,000 years time through taxes
- when challenged to justify their assumptions, merely repeating them
- etc. etc. etc:
after we put aside all these techniques THERE'S NOTHING LEFT.

A truly disgusting display of vanity, arrogance and hysteria well worthy of a chapter in "Popular Delusions and Madness of Crowds" which is unfortunately all we'll have to show for wasting trillions of dollars on criminally stupid boondoggles.

It's worse than we thought! -- the Cook paper, that is:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/

It seems that even the crony system couldn't manage to find a clear majority of papers spruiking AGW over the alternatives.

Rhrosty is right.

Regardless of the debate over who is rong or right with data, does not humanity have a duty to develop less polluting industries just in case.

We know that plastics flow around the world and end up in certain places, as evident in one island of Hawaii, so why not encourage biodegradable plastics. It is the same with fuels, what would we have to lose.

I mean this argument of cost is a bit silly. Would you guys also have mocked the development of sport in the later 19th century. You guys may have argued then that it is not productive or an efficient use of resources to promote recreation and public holiday, but now look at the value of sport. Look at the way sport has also broken down barriers betwen peoples and cultures. I would like to think that a better economic-environmental balance would be a great achievement by humanity.

Come on guys, it is always better to support or discuss new ideas that may build bridges on a whole lot of issues. Just bagging the messenger on both sides is hardly going to be the end of the debate, so we should encourage any new idea that is plausible and diminishes risk.

JKJ - aka PeterBWAHAHHAHA,

I'm afraid your last post was wall-to-wall hysterical bunkum.

"....neat tricks and REVERSING THE SIGNS of their data...."

Yeah, Peter - that's all part of the nasty whopping conspiracy undertaken by around 11,000 climate scientists.

One day their little guide book will be revealed, and then you and all the other "skeptic" chappies on OLO can throw a tea party.

I'm supposing the "skeptics" around here won't read Readfearn's article, but I'll post it anyway.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/planet-oz/2013/may/17/zombie-climate-sceptic-theories-newspapers-tv

"In other words the alternative arguments about the causes of global warming were already dead or dying 20 years ago.

Yet since, then climate contrarians/deniers/skeptics have continually applied the defibrillator paddles to these failing theories in an attempt to bring them back to life."

"To this day, those dead theories hang around like slack-jawed zombies in the graveyards of global media outlets."

No expertise, no scientific foundation, hysterical denial.......

Thanks, JKJ

Dear Chris,

Your posts offer much balance and less vexation than many in this debate.

I am concerned however that you attempt tie in softer environmental issues with the hard core alarmism associated with the CAGW debate.

I doubt any of us would question the human propensity for fouling our nests or that something should be done about that. We do dump much unsightly and pollution waste, plastics and many other byproducts can be included. But to try to bury the “political conservation” movement within the general pollution waste issue is a bit too obvious for me.

You wisely avoid the question of which scientists may be right but you follow this with the precautionary principle.

I think you have realised that the “warmer science” in this debate is invalid. It can no longer even sustain its own global infrastructure which has now spectacularly collapsed.

Kyoto is gone, the financial emissions trading markets have either closed or collapsed and the renewable energy industry has shrunk by 90%.

Even if we could get enough support to breathe life into this particular dead cat, there is no longer any global infrastructure to do anything about it.

So what do you suggest