No-one seems to mention global dimming these days. If stopping aircraft over the US for 3 days post 9/11 could produce a 1 degree increase in temperature over the US, and given the huge increase in air traffic around the world in the last ten years, it seems logical that not only could GD could be masking a significant temperature increase, but it may also account for the apparent recent 'cooling'. It would neatly explain our cooler summers (reduced sunlight) and warmer winters (heat can't escape so readily) in the last few years.

That is a good point Candide. There is a theory that man made dust particles in the atmosphere have limited global warming, by reflecting off or diffusing sunlight. However it is still pollution, and does not reduce CO2 acidification of the oceans.

Captain of Titanic to ship's navigator. "There's no evidence of icebergs this far south this year, so no need to alter course".

Further to Evans' point, which seemed to me unduly restrained:

Al Gore, hedge fund manager and inheritor of vast riches from ruthless mining and other ventures, but supposed “darling of the left”. Al never had to work for a living and, it seems, never had to study for it either. By sloppy reference to ice core samples, Al Gore's “Inconvenient Truth” bases its claim about AGW on one of the most outlandish pseudo-scientific fallacies I have seen, depicting carbon dioxide as PRECEDING global temperature rises during past millenia. In fact, the actual evidence depicts carbon dioxide increases AFTER global temperature rises, which is a concept even the lay observer grasps in the comparison with say the human body's processes in summer or during physical exercise. Al Gore's ignorance in that case is astonishing; such basic, major error would seriously discredit any undergraduate. To grasp just how silly Al Gore really is, think of the South Park episodes about “Manbearpig”. Many commoners understand the flaws of such sloppy, but very influential, AGW pseudo-science. However, his film is lauded to the skies, while he himself is continually feted by a multitide of other ambitious, rich and well-connected people.

AGW alarmists should really check out the above-described anomalies. Like Evans I used to be a believer: now I know it is a massive con.

Spot on miner.

Evans was referring to what had been measured in the troposhere ie no warming hot spot ..nuffink.

Lambert is referring to what the models show..a hot spot.

Ergo, the models are B/S.

Now thats not hard to work out.

But wait, the models cant be wrong, so it must be the measuring tools and techniques that are up the creek.
Now where have I heard that refrain before.

'It’s not just little old ladies who can be conned; and it’s beginning to look more and more that a lot of ‘smart’, ‘intelligent’ and influential people have been well and truly duped by the carbon emissions tricksters.'

It certainly isn't just old ladies who can be conned. Any person believing that one day they won't have to face judgement has been sucked into the biggest con. Thank God that Christ paid the price for those willing to humble themselves.