graham:

1) no question there was a flaming element, and yes you would have every right to delete my post.

2) the suggestion that my post was merely a flame is absurd. i have every right to question yours and lawson's intellectual integrity on this matter.

the way you guys argue and pseudo-argue is dumb and disgraceful. and curmudgeon's (lawson's?) comment was a dumb, disgusting slur.

3) i have no need to reveal myself, nor my qualifications. i don't choose to do so, and it is irrelevant to my (meta-meta)-argument. the pertinent fact is, you're an amateur.

4) i am not saying majority view decides truth. what i'm saying is that majority expert scientific opinion is our best guess to what is true science, unless you can demonstrate some systemic bias. if you wish to attack the integrity of the climate science community then do so with substance, not unsubstantiated slurs and cherry-picked facts and scare quotes.

Stop press;

Steve McIntyre has finally gained access to the data used by Mann & co to produce all this rubbish.

Guess what. As expected, the reason it's been kept hidden so long, it's as crooked as a hockey stick.

Sigh. So much disinformation, so little time.

Some reading for those who seriously think there is any significant scientific doubt over whether the world is warming, or whether anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause:

Measurements of Earth's energy imbalance show unmistakeable overall net warming:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=67

Here's where the warming is happening, and why short term variation in surface temperature is a very small part of the big picture:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=58

Don't skim; read and understand.

GrahamY, you said "The historical record points to CO2 having a very weak overall effect with CO2 concentrations following temperature change, not preceding it."

That's not correct - it fails to grasp the real picture, which is that we've seen in past interglacial warming episodes an initial weak warming due to orbital changes, leading to CO2 rise, which causes further warming, which triggers feedbacks and more CO2 rise, which leads to more warming, and so on until a new equilibrium is reached.

See http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Someone asked for more info on Plimer's fraudulent/deceptive approach in "Heaven and Earth". Start here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o.php
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/do-you-believe-ian-plimer/

Eclipse Now - sorry I didn't realise you were serious about those questions.
NASA showing 2005 as the peak. Good point. In fact its an open scandle that the GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Science which is a part of NASA) is different from the rest and shows the peak at 2005, rather than 1998. (There are four other data sets, which all show 1998 as the peak.) There have been very strong suggestions that Prof Hanson, as GISS director, has been fiddling the results.. everybody uses Hadley NCDC or the two satellite sites..
Question number two only really the UK Met office can answer.. they are still insisting that things are getting worse but, as I noted, the theory is in disarray and recent temperature tracks don't support their conclusion, so I can't see how they still say what they say.
As for point three... no, there is now substantial evidence that the MWP is warmer, mainly archeological.. grapes being exported from Yorkshire in England, the altitude limit of cultivation directly related to elevation which can be traced, recent work in the andes ect.. There are temperatures graphs that show the opposite but these rely on interpretation - that is, matching the fossil record with present instrument records - by scientists who are not aware, or who may not want to know about, the archeological evidence.
I don't have the links to hand but the recent book Little Ice Age mentions the altitude stuff.. There is also the journal Holocence which has various papers on the cycles of heat and cold..
And rememeber until a few years back, the IPCC was doing its best to deny that the Little Ice Age was a global thing.
If temperatues go up sharply (actually they will go up somewhat over the next few months and then fall again) over the next couple of year they I'll go away. Tbhe real question is will you

“Protagoras, I don't need a primer on how hydrocarbons are oxdised to form various carbon compounds and water. If you think that burning (oxidising) organic material to produce energy in a process which creates CO2 is pollution then you'd better stop breathing now because you're polluting the world. (I'm going to resist a snide remark at this point).”

Graham – You may not want a primer on chemical reactions of atmospheric hydrocarbons but you certainly need one. Unfortunately you cannot give eco-criminals and their sycophants more information than they're prepared to receive.

Perhaps their ignorance is due to the unregulated, rampant releases of arsenic, lead, mercury and cyanide that they spread with gay abandon? Perhaps it could be payback time? Behold....the laws of Karma!

And you know Graham, I strongly suspect discredited dirty digger, Plimer may be exhibiting symptons of lead poisoning from his orebody at Broken Hill too. What say thee?

Hennyways Graham, why don’t you quit while you’re behind? There’s no hope of getting out of the corner you’ve talked yourself into.

If you're incapable of understanding the ecological impacts of digging up and burning fossil fuels, why make a further goose of yourself?

As to your suggestion that I should cease breathing due to exhaling carbon dioxide, may I suggest you access a school curriculum suitable for Year Seven students? It would go something like this:

“Humans exhale carbon dioxide (the rate is approximately 1 kg per day - depending strongly on the person's activity level). This carbon dioxide includes carbon that was originally taken out of the carbon dioxide in the air by plants through photosynthesis - whether you eat the plants directly or animals that eat the plants.

Thus, there is a closed loop, with no net addition to the atmosphere.”

That's a good point Protagoras.

I suppose that means you'll be out there with the beef industry, when KRudd, & his mates want to apply a carbon tax to their cows, for doing the same thing.

What was that? The same thing doesn't apply to cows, only native animals.

Why is it that I'm not surprised at that?