David Palmer, thanks for those links. They are the best summaries of the anti AGW position I have read, ever.

As for "Thank you Bob Carter for your sane and sensible paper" - we will have to differ on that. Noisily pointing to what amounts to a minor side issue effecting a small part of the planet and then claiming that it undercuts all of AGW does not count as "sane and sensible" in my view.

A pretty graph, Bob. Can I see one showing average temp changes over the Arctic?

The jury on the causes of climate change is still out. "400 scientists reported to the US senate last year that the average surface temperature has not changed statistically in the past decade. Global warming that we have experienced since 1970 is cyclical and nothing to with man's activities or C02."
This debate has become so muddied that some of us cannot see the wood for the trees.

http://www.thefreesociety.org/Issues/Environment/warning-is-green-the-new-red

Kollontai,

The debate is “muddied” in the media and blogosphere because of spin doctoring by political ideologues and vested interest groups that want to maintain the status quo.

Senator Inhofe's rhetoric is over the top. In his Senate speech on climate change he lists a swathe of “authorities” (including a number of mainstream scientists) who supposedly back his view of climate science. But some of these scientists have protested that they were misrepresented.

For example, in his Senate speech, Inhofe described the distinguished Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider as a critic of the IPCC, claiming that calculations published by Schneider in the journal Nature "cast serious doubt" on the IPCC's projections.

In a lengthy rebuttal submitted in response to questions from the Republican Senator and Presidential nominee John McCain, Schneider wrote, "It is misrepresenting my views to characterize them as even implying that the IPCC has exaggerated or failed to describe the state of the science fairly."

The most striking thing about Inhofe's climate-science senate submission is not the scientists whom it misrepresents (of which there are many) but the science it ignores. Inhofe does not even acknowledge the report by the National Academy of Sciences, commissioned by the Bush administration, which confirmed the reliability of the IPCC's work.

In its opening sentences that report states: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising."

This is why the Bush Administration is changing its strategies and policies in dealing with global warming.

Here are Professor Schneider’s views on the ‘trees and the forests’ of climate science.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFrameset.html

Kollontai, to solve the problems that GW presents, it would help if people took their ideological blinkers off and worked together.

Did you do that graph yourself Bob? It looks nice. Almost like global temperature readings, but something seems to have been fiddled with in the averages.
Not you surely Bob?