Agronomist, thanks for the link. There was no attempt by you to deal with the science, as I pointed out at the time. You viewed it as such an attempt in your parallel universe, which is not perceptible to me from the real world which I inhabit.
A message from Nigel Lawson of the real world is:
“wholly contrary to the expectations of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, who confidently predicted that global warming would not merely continue but would accelerate, given the unprecedented growth of global carbon emissions, as China's coal-based economy has grown by leaps and bounds, there has been no further warming at all. To be precise, the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a deeply flawed body whose non-scientist chairman is a committed climate alarmist, reckons that global warming has latterly been occurring at the rate of — wait for it — 0.05ºC per decade, plus or minus 0.1ºC. Their figures, not mine. In other words, the observed rate of warming is less than the margin of error.”

Lord Lawson has a polite name for fraud backing and finishes his article with an appropriate remark on it:
“Global warming orthodoxy is not merely irrational. It is wicked.”

http://www.thegwpf.org/nigel-lawson-the-bath-lecture/

Accept reality, Agronomist, and relinquish the AGW fraud. Your bodgy figures fooled no one.

Origins of Man, you should read the article, as it may still be possible to break through the sterility of your limited mind. If your fraud-backing is based on ignorance, this article might save you. Good luck.

Leo Lane, that link is some of the scientific evidence.

I note rather than address any of the science you rely on the comments of a politician with no expertise in science, let alone climate science on the topic. Unless Lawson can back his opinions with evidence, they are completely worthless.

Once again religion trumps facts.

Agronomist, the science you raised in the thread to which you provided the link was in relation to the effect of CO2 on climate.
The question I raised was what science is there to show that human emissions have an effect on climate.
Nature has a huge carbon cycle of which human emissions are a very small part. The effect of human emissions is trivial and does not have the significance necessary to be scientifically noticed. Your “misunderstanding” of the question is simply a ploy to avoid it by a pretence of stupidity.

Your clumsy attempt to fit the valid criticism of your position “religion trumps facts” to a criticism of the valid view is pathetic.

The debate of the AGW fraud is a political one. There is no science to support your position, as the IPCC has demonstrated, in the manner clearly pointed out by Lord Lawson.

Your fraud backing is obviously based on dishonesty. You cannot be as stupid as you pretend to be.

Hi Agronomist,

A cat can look at a king, they used to say. So Lawson can point out that Pachauri said " .... that global warming has latterly been occurring at the rate of — wait for it — 0.05ºC per decade, plus or minus 0.1ºC. Their figures, not mine. In other words, the observed rate of warming is less than the margin of error”

and the question then, whether or not he is a climate scientist, or a finance minister or cook or whatever, is:

is what Lawson cites a faithful quote or not ? Did Pachauri or some other IPCC dignitary declare that global warming had been occurring at such and such a rate, with such and such a margin of error ? Yes ? No ?

IF he, or somebody like him, did, then the point is that the estimate - for that is most certainly what it is, if we can give or take 0.1 degree from an estimated rise of 0.05 of a degree - is not worth a crumpet.

Sometimes I wish that I was, like you, a fervent and unquestioning believer, but I was raised atheist, so there's not much I can do about it :(

But I liked your bit about religion trying to trump facts - that takes a lot of cheek :)

Joe

Leo Lane, it seems to me that you don’t understand how this science stuff works. Science is built from pieces of evidence as they are discovered. When new evidence becomes available, the old evidence is re-assessed. It is not like religion where the truth, so to speak, is revealed all at once and written down in a book never to change.

So this was just the first piece of evidence needed to address your demand. Until there is agreement that this evidence is sound, there is no point going further. So do you accept that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation and this causes it to warm the atmosphere as outlined in Arrhenius’ paper of 1896?

Loudmouth, the quote from Lawson was both wrong and irrelevant.

The statement from Lawson is not a faithful quote. The IPCC concluded:

“The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880 to 2012”.

They then note:

“Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).”

Lawson's statement is irrelevant for the current purpose, because the research I was pointing to was about CO2 absorbing infra-red radiation and what lawson misquotes the IPCC as writing has nothing to do with that.

Hi Agrominist,

"the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade ..... "

seems to translate, to my limited understanding, to 0.05 of a degree per decade, plus or minus 0.1 of a degree, like Lawson wrote. Would that plus or minus 0.1 degree be at one SD ?

Joe