Graham, “I sometimes wonder whether anyone bothers reading these articles before posting.” You are right and I apologise not just to you but to all posters on OLO, for I am guilty of such things (but not always).

You yourself are self-incriminating – so what is the difference? I imagine you roll your eyes sometimes seeing the posts on your forum, we posters on your site are no different.

“The really interesting thing for me is the research suggesting that the negative water vapor feedback will cancel much of the greenhouse warming out. If that is the case then CO2 emissions aren't a problem.” This is not enough Graham, whether it is interesting for you or not.

Why is it so interesting to you? You should give us the reasons – at least the links to the published research papers or sources that make it so interesting for you, so we can make up our own minds … to either agree or disagree.

Graham, one could suspect the ‘subject’ of the article could be your ‘quiet’ hobby horse as well ... why do you post here when there are so many other articles (to your credit)?

“From which we can deduce that it wouldn't matter what the facts are, they'd still want people to stop burning fossil fuels, or not, as the case may be!” Why the exclamation Graham, are you angry?

Who are the “we” Graham? Is OLO, under your management, in the business of indoctrinating people to your way of thinking – right or wrong? Are you the expert on global warming, in all its nuances? I don’t think so ... fossil fuel burning will be around for a while yet, "as the case may be".

I’m no expert and I for one am going to defer to those that are … some call it insurance or risk management.

Graham,
I thought Roy Spencer's presentation was most interesting - and yes, he does suggest that negative feedback will mean more carbon dioxide will not necessarily result in more warming. But water vapour = positive feedback.
Spencer leads the team that is analysing data from NASA's Aqua Satellite. This satellite launched in 2002 enables the collection of detailed data for the first time on cloud formation, water vapour and temperture anomalies and it has shown that weather processes (including low level cloud formation and then rainfall as opposed to more water vapour and high level cloud)limit the total greenhouse effect in proporation to available sunlight.

These findings have been published and are not being disputed by mainstream meteorologists - but they are having trouble digesting the findings

For more information on water vapour and how it responds to troposhere warming you can read Roy Spencer here:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

Also, this is some of what Dr Spencer has to say about accusations of bias:

It has become commonplace for scientists like me who are skeptical of mankind's role in global warming to be branded as shills for "Big Oil". As a result of misinformation posted at ExxonSecrets.org (and other web sites that spread that misinformation), I would like to set the record straight concerning my financial interests.

ExxonSecrets.org notes that I have given talks on global warming at conservative think tanks like the Marshall Institute, implying that I have some sort of financial relationship with them. In truth, I received no speaking fee for these talks -- but I HAVE been paid for giving talks for environmental organizations in several states. I wonder why ExxonSecrets.org doesn't mention this connection to "Big Environmentalism"? After all, they are the ones who have paid me speaking fees -- not the Marshall Institute....

As long as the global warming pessimists can convince the public that we skeptics are simply shills for Big Oil, they do not have to address our scientific arguments. The claims that there are no peer-reviewed scientific articles that oppose a manmade source of global warming are, quite simply, wrong. Fortunately, the tide is slowly turning, and increasing numbers of scientists are now speaking out about their doubts concerning mankind's role in recent global warmth.

Hi Jennifer. I simply made the point that the vast majority of wholesale critics of anthropogenic climate change invariably are either not publishing work in the critical specialist journals, and so are not involved in the peer-reviewed science proper of climate change, or are part of astroturf organisations - which certainly exist - such as the Heartland Institute - which funded the conference and selected and paid for the speakers you are attempting to pass off in the article as a gathering of independent and disinterested scientists.

I raised this issue in general terms, because we see a remarkably consistent pattern with those who are taking the strongest sceptic position. Every time it is the same: an argument is made that there is no real consensus, we have another self-proclaimed expert trotted out who often happens to misrepresent their qualifications (either through positive representations, or by simply staying silent as to their particular expertise), does not publish any peer-reviewed work in modern journals, only op-eds, claims to be a victim of vast conspiracy, and happens to hold a large number of heterodox views either about climate science, or just general science - such as Mr Spencer's view that long-term increases in observed carbon dioxide concentration at Mauna Loa since 1958 are driven by the ocean, or his claim that ID is 'scientifically' equivalent to evolution.

Now, I'm not saying their is no room for disagreement. Obviously we depend on scepticism as part of the natural scientific process. But, you'll forgive me for not accepting that name dropping the speaker lists from a conference funded by industry specifically to promote a counterpoint view which suits industry, demonstrates a real plurality of views in the scientific community. It doesn't. The individual claims that come from any putative testable science done by any of the participating scientists will have its voice in the scientific enterprise, but it needs to be weighed in the proper peer-reviewed process, not bypassing that process through a PR exercise.

FYI - Detailed responses to most climate change scepticism can be found at the following blogs:
http://www.realclimate.org
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/

Dickie, when i posted a web address it was to show the graph with SH sea ice at .... i.e. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg

Even with basic primary school understanding of the melting point of ice and some knowledge of Anarctica you wouldn't even need to consult someone nor look at graphs. I suggest you start using plain old commonsense. However, the real issue in my post here is the manner in which our national broadcaster, the ABC, handles science particularly with climate because it points to weak people, a weak media and an outcome where science faces a diminishing role in public policy. There is no moral purpose nor education revolution to be found at the ABC.

Then some people simply see earth’s climate politically with all the alarmist warmers on the left. But the big misconception here is that our largest plasma discharge formation the sun and our galactic environment don’t go to the ballotbox and vote on anything. Politics or who someone thinks they are has little relevance. When it comes to earth’s climate we are just a petite faaart but Fruitloop Flannery, Shonky Algorithms, Hansen and co, just naturally assume they are the hurricane. It is no coincidence that we have Flannery wanting to be one of the “Weather Makers” which proves the point that a person with a frothing delusion like this is absolutely convinced that the delusion is real. Also, these jokers all assume now is the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that our sun is somehow perfect, constant and regular. This is all part of this AGW fraud.

Czech President Klaus, who holds an economics degree, is no more qualified to assert his opinion on the science of climate change than an ordinary lay person. Nevertheless, as prime minister from 1992 to 1997, he was credited with successfully transforming the Czech economy though hardly relevant to global warming. He was also forced to leave office after his party was implicated in a financial scandal.

Michael J. Economides is a professor at the Cullen College of Engineering, University of Houston; chairman of the board of Paleon Oil and Gas; and managing partner of a petroleum engineering and petroleum strategy consulting firm. He is editor-in-chief of the Energy Tribune.

Roy Spencer may be on to something with his latest research on CO2 but typically fails to address anthropogenic, environmental toxicity. The religious Spencer has been proven wrong in the past which makes me wonder, when one scientist comes up with a hypothesis which suits the ideologies of the sceptics, why everyone on the right falls over themselves trying to pile it on?

I'm again compelled to reiterate unanswered questions raised in the past with the author and request that she addresses here, the relevant, scientifically proven and dire state of this planet's eco-systems - predominantly a result of fossil fuel emissions (= CO2):

1. Unprecedented mass bird deaths
2. Unprecedented mass fish deaths
3. Unprecedented (in modern history) numbers of threatened native species in Australia
4. Unprededented worldwide community objections to industrial pollution affecting human health and community amenities
5. Unprecedented ocean dead zones
6. Unprecedented number of nations advising pregnant women and young children not to eat fish - a result of mercury contamination
7. Unprecedented, conservative estimate of 3 million deaths per year from fossil fuel pollution (WHO)
8. Unprecedented government bans on fishing to prevent collapses of fish stocks
9. Unprecedented land and water toxicity and degradation

What are the author's recommendations for preventing humans from populating themselves out of existence or the continued clearing of hectare after hectare for housing, business, mining, farming etc whilst she continues to advocate exclusively for the "freedom" to pollute?