Lol.

Dear utternutter,

Now be a good chap and wait your turn. We have all day. I promise I will get to you.

Perhaps reflect on your own words of wisdom from earlier in the thread;

"Slence (sic) really is golden."

Leo you missed a few points here.
I provided a link to one of many papers that demonstrate a clear link between CO2 emissions and global warming. Then Nutter complained that he wanted a link that relied solely on data and no theory. To which I responded by explaining that is not how the scientific method works.

Somewhere along the line Cohenite chips in with some nonsense about convection as if it was some wonderful new revelation, when in fact it has been well understood since the 1930s and is part of all climate models, whether it is for a 7 day weather forecast, or the probable impact of GHGs on future climate.

Here is a link to a good site if you really want to understand something about GHGs and climate.

http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/

Thanks, Steele. You do understand, do you,, that there are two issue, one whether human emissions have any significant effect on climate, the other is whether there is currently any global warming.

No one, from the fraud backing camp, despite constant requests, has given us a reference to any science supporting the assertion that human emissions have any significant effect on climate.

The planet has not warmed since 1998, which is the reason for the fraud backers’ annual announcements of “hottest year on record”. They are desperate to prove warming, so tell desperate and futile lies about the temperature.

The planet is not currently warming, and human emissions have a trivial effect on climate.

Raising irrelevant aspects of the matter and making vacuous remarks like “cherry picking”does not help you in backing the AGW fraud. You need some science, and you have none.

warmair, you were shown that surface temperature is not rising and that Stratosphere temperature is not cooling in complete contradiction to Santer et al's paper, and now you link to SOD.

Unlike you I have read SOD who is sometimes useful like when he says:

"In essence radiative forcing is the change in TOA flux. When less flux escapes this is considered a positive radiative forcing. The reason is this: less flux radiated from the climate system means that less energy is leaving, which means the climate will heat (all other things being equal)."

NOAA TOA measurements of OLR show more radiation is leaving Earth; this means that by AGW's own criteria there is less radiation within the climate system to cause AGW; again it is a complete contradiction of AGW based on real data and not modelling; see NOAA's graph:

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/teleconnections/olr-s-pg.gif

And NOAA data graphed with temperature anomalies at the surface:

http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20CPC%20EquatorOutgoingLWradiationAnomalyMonthly%20and%20HadCRUT3%20since1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

The connection with surface temperatures increasing and OLR increasing is a straightforward product of Stefan-Boltzmann and more importantly the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere is not trapping that radiation from leaving the planet.

That is an indisputable contradiction to AGW, Santer and anything else you idiots and supercilious suckers for AGW want to throw up.

But please you and the man with the porno sobriquet continue to provide amusement by presenting your 'proof' of AGW.

The last thread you were on steelee you showed you were just another abusive liar. I expect you will continue in that vein here.

Your last exhibition showed you lack any credibility.

Dear Leo Lane,

Understand completely the two issues. What is important to discern is what type of information you consider goes to answering them which is why I raised a specific example. Do you accept that the link Cohendite provided is a valid part of proving there is no warming trend? He certainly thinks it is otherwise he wouldn't have posted it. It is a very straight forward question.

Dear utternutter,

Manners me lad. Didn't your mum teach you nuffin? You can have your turn soon.