There's surely no doubt whatsoever, we are experiencing climate change!
The argument is, is, any of it down to human activity, and the greenhouse effect, or just due to ever increasing solar radiation?
Lets hope it is the former, because we can do something about man made climate change, and if we are rational, make lots of money, and seriously expand our economies and economic opportunities, into the bargain!
Does anyone seriously believe that we'd lose out replacing coal fired power stations with cheaper than coal, carbon free thorium ones?
Or utilizing our currently wasted waste, to convert it into methane, and then use that scrubbed methane to power ceramic cells, which in turn powers our homes or high rise building, with virtually free power, along with free hot water!
What's wrong with that?
I mean, if climate change is just the result of increased solar radiation, then surely we will be running our air conditioners day and night, if we can actually afford to!
And given virtually every conventional motor vehicle is running on algae, albeit very old and needing much processing/refining before we can use it, what could possibly wrong with growing algae, some of which are up to 60% oil, and naturally produce ready to use diesel, or jet fuel!
Moreover, algae absorb 2.5 times their own body weight in atmospheric carbon, and under optimized conditions, literally double that size and absorption capacity every 24 hours.
Extracting the ready to use as is bio fuel, is virtual child's play and as simple as filtering out some of the algae product, sun drying it, then extracting the ready to use as is products, by a rudimentary crushing method.
One grower, a foreign company, is on the public record saying, given scales of economy, they could provide the finished product, inclusive of fuel excise, for as little as 44 cents a litre!
Does anyone except the fossil fuel industry, have a problem with that?
The ex crush material, may by useful as fodder, or as feed stock for an ethanol plant(s).
Rhrosty.

Hi Leo, it appears both you and Steele are wrong about Mann's lawsuit. Steele, because he referred to the wrong lawsuit, and you because you relied on bad information. According to WUWT, I think an indisputably good source when it criticises arguments which support a skeptical interpretation, Ball confirms that it is a procedural hiccup for Mann, but the case is still ongoing http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/22/michael-manns-legal-case-caught-in-a-quote-fabrication-fib.

Steele was referring to Mann's other case, which is against Mark Steyn. Steyn tried to have it thrown out as an abuse of process, and the judge refused because he said there was an arguable case.

I'd be surprised if Mann eventually wins both cases. It seems he is engaging in legal harassment of people who call him for his questionable statistical methods, and failure to reveal relevant information - such as the fact that he dropped recent proxy data and substituted instrumental data because the proxy data started to show cooling. In my view this substitution is fraudulent, as suggested by the reference to it by his colleagues as "Mike's nature trick".

But perhaps Steyn has gone too far in accusing him of torturing data, when the charge perhaps should have been gross incompetence instead. Certainly bristlecone rings are not a suitable proxy, and using one solitary tree to represent the whole of the southern hemisphere is ridiculous, apart from his issues with the algorithms he used in analysing the data.

Anyway, court cases don't prove science, observations and experiments do.

One of the good things of the cases is that the court-based discovery process should give us access to a lot of information which will give a better view as to how he went about his work.

Let's see.

DTR has decreased over the last 50 years. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00032.1

Surface temperatures over the last decade are higher than they have ever been in the measurement record http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

Arctic sea ice has declined even in February https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Antarctic sea ice has increased slightly in extent http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html but has decreased in volume http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120010403.pdf

OLR is highly variable and subject to interference by clouds and other factors, but there has been a small decline in the last decade http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD017997/abstract

Sea level is still increasing http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

I think that has addressed all the topics with data.

Hi voxUnius
It was my attempt at humour, the science is well and truly in about the structure of molecules. Fraud has been mentioned so often on articles about about climate change and much misinformation has also been provided, so I tried to package up the arguments about climate science in a different way. By the way, I realize that the correct term is molecule, and that when writing about chromosomes that it is the gene that is a blue print for whatever life form. I sent the same piece off elsewhere earlier today and immediately under it wrote about molecules. Just pointing out some of the misinformation we receive from deniers and they keep providing the same information after being corrected.
I watched this clip last night where Monckton's arguments are forensically pulled apart:

http://www.realsceptic.com/climate-changes-but-facts-dont-debunking-monckton/21-monckton-has-published-in-the-peer-reviewed-literature/

This is the whole clip which takes about 2 hours:

http://www.realsceptic.com/climate-changes-but-facts-dont-debunking-monckton/

Agronomist,

just a few questions.

'DTR has decreased over the last 50 years.' What are the data showing over the past 17 years?

'Surface temperatures over the last decade are higher than they have ever been in the measurement record.' Really, but does the current data show they are still rising?

'Arctic sea ice has declined even in February.' As compared to what period?

'Antarctic sea ice has increased slightly in extent...but has decreased in volume.'
What you don't quote from the report is much more significant and shows you being a tad deceptive.
'Sea ice thickness exhibits a small negative trend while area increases in the summer and fall balanced losses in thickness
leading to small overall volume changes.' (Increases.)

Just to remind you Antarctic ice accounts for 90% of the worlds ice cover.

'OLR is highly variable and subject to interference by clouds and other factors, but there has been a small decline in the last decade.'

Fine but is Feb 2014 data showing an increase or decrease? I think the data you quote from June 2011 doesn't reflect the past 3 years. Another of your statistical deceptions. Your quote does not cover the last decade.

'Sea level is still increasing.'
The article says the way measurements were taken had changed and that part of the report was based on all missions now using 'the GOT4.8 tide model'.

Geez Agronomist that was so easy. Do better next time.

And yet, there they were standing ankle deep in the sea water coming in the out sluices.
Geez, Nutter, that was so easy.
Rhosty has it about right. The world's climate is changing, even if the 'why' of that is little understood.
This argument is one of my favourites on OLO. Nobody knows, so we all get up each others noses. So mature. So learned.
Meanwhile, how to explain to someone with wet feet that their feet are not wet at all, but merely subject to a statistical anomoly?