Look agro, if you don't like my list make your own bloody list; you're a big boy and you're 1/2 way there already. You stomp around here moaning and groaning; do something useful: make a list!

I should point out however that Spencer and Braswell's paper is in this list:

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

The Chilingar paper you list I have seen and is not in any list by me but another Chilingar paper is:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/09/ten-of-the-best-climate-research-papers-nine-peer-reviewed-a-note-from-cohenite/

I am familiar with the Manuel and Archibald efforts but they are not on any of my lists. Knock yourself out.

Hockey one, hockey two, hockey three, four, five six..........: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

JF asks "Are you saying that according to physics an increase in matter cannot retain an increase in heat"

More mass = more heat absorption or radiation for a given substance as it rises or falls to the surrounding temperature.

Phytoplankton displacing water would have to either be heavier than the water it displaces (yet it doesn't sink?) or have a higher emissivity or specific heat than water(which it doesn't), to absorb or radiate more heat than the water displaced.

You need experimental research to demonstrate my theorizing is wrong and that science has overlooked something of tremendous significance that smashes the CO2 hypothesis to smithereens. Thought experiments on blogs like this won't cut it, you need to convince the world. Surely cohenite's climate scientist are at your disposal, at least (cohenite?)

What you may also be onto here, JF, is why sea levels are on the rise, by crikey!

Emissivity is an intensive property.

Sea level rise is not apparent from my point of view.
In the SW Pacific Islands I see that seabed and islands have sunk down during earthquake.
There is dead coral almost everywhere.
Atolls are formed from coral sand and rubble, supply of which is now reduced due to so much dead coral.

The sinking of seabed and islands when the 2007 Ranogga earthquake occurred has not been duly investigated and reported by AGW-interested media. I did hear an half-baked ABC radio interview with misleading questions put to the author of Sinking Islands". But reality of the true situation is not being honestly reported. Sea level rise can not just occur at Tuvalu of Kiribati and not off Tasmania and elsewhere.

If nutrient pollution and algae is the problem and not CO2, proper solutions will be put in place.
There are indications the nutrient loading dumped into ocean ecosystems each day can be reduced at a profit.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/09/ten-of-the-best-climate-research-papers-nine-peer-reviewed-a-note-from-cohenite/

You do like parading your ignorance don't you cohenite. Those "nine peer reviewed" papers are actually only 7 peer-reviewed papers. So someone has trouble counting again.

But what I really like about that list is how internally inconsistent it is. It is a bit like going down the rabbit hole where one has to believe 10 impossible things before breakfast.

If any one of these papers is the best and therefore (presumably) correct, then all the other nine have to be wrong and a load of junk.

Just an example: If Chillingar et al. is correct, the greenhouse effect does not exist. Yet all the other papers in the list start from the assumption that the greenhouse effect does exist, but make claims that it cannot increase no matter how much CO2 is added to the atmosphere, or that it is increasing a little bit and other spurious arguments.

Yes, those 2 complaints, about there only being 7 peer reviews and if as you say Chilingar is right then a greenhouse effect doesn't exist, were addressed in the comments.

The first complaint is right but the 2nd has no force. I was simply putting up papers which critiqued AGW; and alleged internal inconsistency between these papers was grist for the mill.

But it is typical of alarmists to dwell on such confected 'errors' on the sceptical side while ignoring the asteroid size holes in their own science. Perhaps that's why you won't produce a list of say the 10 reasons why AGW is real or the 10 best peer reviewed papers supporting AGW.

Come on agro, put your expertise where your grizzles are; produce a list.