“ The problem is that you cannot argue against facts.”. Not true, ant, that is how you always argue.
The fact is that there is no science to support the assertion of AGW, You assert AGW constantly.

“Leo, your suggesting that New Zealand temperatures were "fraudulently" taken” Where did I, or any one else, make such a stupid suggestion?. The case was about adjustment of data. Having read more about it, scientific advice, as I previously suggested, would not have helped as the rulings by the Judge, on expert evidence made the case impossible.
Steele has had another ramble through the rubbish of his mind. He describes the science which we dish up to him as “political Mantras”.
No wonder he never learns anything.

Thanks for that Mr Redux. Your rant is as cogent a piece of fluff, hyperbole, snide condescension, verballing and ratbaggery as any other I have been exposed to in my journey amongst the AGW glitterati.

Let's just take your first point: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, a misnomer wilfully and persistently used by the alarmists since greenhouses warm by a lack of convection not through radiation but like so many other small lies of AGW we'll ignore that and look at the bigger lie.

I said CO2 is photoluminescent, didn't I? Do you disagree with that? And then I mentioned Beer lambert and Hottel, didn't I? Do you disagree that CO2 is subject to Beer Lambert which produces the log constraint on the 'greenhouse' effect of additional CO2?

And do you disagree with Hottel's principles who found that CO2 emissivity levels off at ~200 ppmV in an infinite optical path; an infinite optical path is the basis of the AGW modelling. Hottel Charts are a scientific paradigm. Hottel's data was confirmed in the 1970s by Leveck. So there can be no CO2-AGW because it's effect ceases at about 200ppmV.

Do you disagree with that? If so put up your alternative AGW reality.

Steelee

There you go again with you unique way of deduction. Do you need reminding of your past performances?
Nothing that you say here proves AGW.

I can just as easily assert that since temps are no longer rising but co2 emission are continuing to rise more rapidly (both can be supported with references)there is no relation between the two.

Come on steelee even climate terrorists admit their data from ice cores shows that in the past the planet warmed before co2 levels rose.
Do you want a reference? Ask ant he supplied the link.

Lol

Who me? Chant mantra?
Show me where witless.

“Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.
The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.”
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18243

I have posted this before, and post it again as a sample of what the delusional Steele calls a “political mantra”
A large part of his gravitation to the name” Witless”, comes from his inability to participate in rational discussion, of which labeling a reference to science as a “political mantra” forms only a small part.

Dear cohenite,

CO2 is photoluminescent? What on earth does that even mean?

CO2 is an infrared active green house gas.

You wrote; “CO2 is a greenhouse gas, a misnomer wilfully and persistently used by the alarmists”

Gawd struth!

“The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.”
Wikipedia

So all these gentlemen were 'alarmists' were they?

What about Alexander Graham Bell? He wrote that the continued burning of fossil fuels “would have a sort of greenhouse effect”.

It is a term persistently accepted and used by everyone for well over a hundred years.

You and your three acolytes are so very fringe my friend. A distraction and perhaps sometimes an amusement but little else.

Dear spindoc,

I didn't address your question as you had dodged mine. I can try again if you like.

What does it mean when it states “Antarctic Sea Ice At Record Levels”?