Eclipse Now,

Thanks for providing the link to "the 26 top myths pushed by big oil" - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462.

Although you and the linked article describe them as myths, and some of them certainly are, if you look at what is actually said about these 'myths' science has obviously not disposed of these issues as neatly as you suggest. Examples:

1. Under "Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas" were these quotes:

"It is not surprising that there is a lot of confusion about this - the answer is far from simple."

"Water vapour is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect. Pinning down its precise contribution is tricky..."

"Changes in clouds could lead to even greater amplification of the warming or reduce it - there is great uncertainty about this."

Clearly then, H2O, not CO2 is the main greenhouse contributor but its effects are not well understood. Hardly a debunked or 'myth'ical issue. The lack of understanding as to the water cycle will respond to warming is a HUGE issue which makes meaningful predictions of climate change completely unreliable.

2. Under :Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming" were the following quotes:

"... it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more." (so why are modern CO2 emmissions said to have an immediate effect?)

"This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming..."

"Finally, if higher temperatures lead to more CO2 and more CO2 leads to higher temperatures, why doesn't this positive feedback lead to a runaway greenhouse effect?" Why indeed - the explanation offered is not satisfactory IMO, but in any event, the issue is hardly a myth.

There's more of course, but the fact that these so called 'myths' have not been catagorically 'busted' ought to give everyone pause for thought. Calling them all myths is misleading and intellectually dishonest. In the face of such doubts everyone should be skeptical.

I'd say that would be right Jayb.

In your opinion, does your little exercise add or reduce the level of BS that passes for "informed comment" around here?

For myself, I wouldn't any of it has been reduced by any of yours.

Kalin,
the "myth" in the assertion that Co2 "isn't the most important greenhouse gas" is that therefore, Co2 is NOT important at all. It's all in the presentation. Instead, it is in a finely balanced system and introducing imbalance can quickly reach critical proportions. A small pebble can start a large avalanche. This question of "importance" is like playing semantic games about whether the pebble or the snow made up most of the avalanche.

The best lies are mixed with half truths. Here's another one: Human emissions of Co2 are dwarfed by natural emissions, so why worry about what we do? Again it is in the presentation. Human emissions ARE dwarfed by natural emissions of Co2, but in a finely balanced cycle that we are messing up. (280 ppm to today's 385 ppm). This is Co2 that is extra to the natural system and it is accumulating. Nature cannot process the extra portion fast enough.

Ice core samples? True again. So is the fact that the Milankovitch cycle "wobbles" first and then Co2 changes 800 years later. The MYTH is that global warming was based on what we've learnt about ice ages. This is a misunderstanding that comes from a clumsy moment of "An Inconvenient Truth". In debunking this clumsy moment, sceptics often incorrectly extrapolate that other forcings ALWAYS drive climate and Co2 ALWAYS follows. They ignore the fact that WE are pumping out heaps of Co2, and that it is a TESTABLE, REPEATABLE, QUANTIFIABLE FORCING!

The point is that WE are the ones driving the Co2 imbalance here, and our Co2 emissions are FAR HIGHER than any in the ice-core record for the last million years.

So if you REALLY want to disprove global warming, disprove Co2's spectrometry readings and we'll take it from there.

Eclipse Now,

I understand your point, but the real deceit in the whole.. "these are the top 26 myths list" implies that all the arguments against AGW are myths and these are the top ones. As it stands.. the so called 'myths' cited in the list are only explained by acknowledging very real issues. To that extent the whole use of the word 'myth' in this was is irresponsible and deliberately misleading.

You say that "Human emissions ARE dwarfed by natural emissions of CO2, but in a finely balanced cycle that we are messing up." The flaw with this is that there really is no evidence that the system in question is "finely balanced." All the evidence as to how the atmosphere coped in previous periods when temperature and CO2 levels rose indicate quite the opposite.. that our atmosphere is quite a robust and self correcting system, otherwise the up and down pattern previously observed in ice core records, etc, would have demonstrated a tipping point. No one has yet pointed to any significant factor to say why things will be different this time around.

You say:

"They ignore the fact that WE are pumping out heaps of Co2, and that it is a TESTABLE, REPEATABLE, QUANTIFIABLE FORCING!"

"The point is that WE are the ones driving the Co2 imbalance here, and our Co2 emissions are FAR HIGHER than any in the ice-core record for the last million years."

Whilst CO2 levels are within the range of previous highs, and absent any other significant factor, there is no reason to believe the atmospheric systems of the earth won't cope. The mere fact we are producing more CO2 than ever before does not change that. Emission rates are not the big issue, total CO2 levels are, but even they are not as important for GW as is being suggested, because each increment of increased CO2 levels contributes dramatically less and less to the greenhouse effect.

A question you climate pu$$ie$ of globull whining can't answer:

What do you want the climate to do to prove the theory wrong?

SHOW ME THE CLIMATE CRISIS !
You fear mongering cowards expect the climate to be like the inside of an indoor shopping mall? Too funny.

What do you want the climate to do to prove the theory wrong?
Answer it fear mongers!

Elimination of stratospheric cooling.