(continued)
3. If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature.
In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5 months during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice age climatic cycling. Hypothesis fails.
4. The IPCC’s computer general circulation models, which factor in the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, project that global warming should be occurring at a rate of +2.0̊C/century.
In fact, no warming at all has occurred in either the atmosphere or the ocean for more than the last decade. The models are clearly faulty, and allocate too great a warming effect for the extra carbon dioxide (technically, they are said to overestimate the climate sensitivity). Hypothesis fails.
5. The same computer models predict that a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced warming will be the creation of an atmospheric hot spot at heights of 8-10 km in equatorial regions, and enhanced warming also near both poles.
Given that we already know that the models are faulty, it shouldn’t surprise us to discover that direct measurements by both weather balloon radiosondes and satellite sensors show the absence of surface warming in Antarctica, and a complete absence of the predicted low latitude atmospheric hot spot. Hypothesis fails, twice.
The null hypothesis – because it is the simplest consistent with the known facts – is that global climate changes are presumed to be natural, unless and until specific evidence is forthcoming for human causation.
So far, no evidence has been presented to disprove the null hypothesis.”
https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/failure-of-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-hypothesis/

The science has not changed in regard to human effect on climate, since Carter wrote this.
Why do you ignore the science, Aiden?

I dont ignore the science, Leo. But you do. Take another look at your claims:

1. "Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming;"

That claim is now COMPLETELY FALSE.

In 2013, when the blog post you copied it from was written, it was technically true but ONLY BECAUSE IT USED CHERRY PICKED DATA. On a longer timescale the trend is clear, but over a short timescale the trend isn't always discernible because El Niño years show up warmer than the rest.

This reliance on cherry picked data also completely invalidates point 4.

Now, before we go any further, can you see the difference between "the science" and a blogger who uses cherry picked data to reach his conclusions?

Do you agree that anyone basing their conclusions on cherry picked data is an extremely poor quality source?

(I'll address the other 3 points when you've answered that question).