next,

you want the killer evidence against AGW.

1. We now know that the IPCC process was hijacked by Phil Jones and the gang at the CRU, who refused to hand over their data or the rationale for their ever-upward adjustments of data (and possibly deleted it to prevent potential critics from invalidating it).

We know they cherry-picked data, suborned inferior journalists, conspired to subvert the peer review process and prevent publication of contrary research. Gutless and pathetic, certainly, and possibly fraudulent.

James Hansen, whom Andy regards as an authority, seems to have been doing similar things at NASA's GISS. So the two main datasets are compromised beyond recovery.

Even if you were foolish enough to believe that it is possible to model our extremely complex climate when many major elements of the climate process are are simply unknown, you have now on the basis of Climategate to admit the models are themselves not worth a pinch because they were fed dud data. Garbage in, garbage out.

2. But all of the major models (the ones produced by AGW believers) agree that if human carbon dioxide emissions are driving global warming there should be a hot spot about 8-12 kilometres above the tropics.

The killer evidence? It ain't there. They've searched for years. Hoist on their own petard.

Here's a summary of the logic: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/is-there-any-evidence/

And here's a detailed synopsis of the full Climategate catastrophe:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/climategate-30-years-in-the-making/

Kenhd. All discredited crap! The absence of your precious redspot can be explained by the first law of thermodynamics; in layman's terms, the cooling troposphere is consistent with warming below, which is contained or insulated by increased ghg's. The heat is increasingly contained rather than escaping to warm the troposphere. The missing redspot is in fact a signature of GW!
No one denies the complexity of climate change modelling, and no one claims to know how things will pan out, but science is based on evidence and inference--sufficient of the former to validate the latter. And we have it in spades that AGW is a dire reality.
All the crap you and your motley crew can gather up (there's nothing that stands up) is mere obfuscation, but the wasted time might be crucial.
So, what if you're wrong? Is that a possibility for you lot? If it is, it's stiff sh!t I suppose?
If the other side is wrong, despite mountains of evidence, we'll end up with a cleaner planet!
In anticipation of the response; shove it where the sun don't shine!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c

Hey! Anybody notice that Andrew Glikson is developing a modus operandi of throwing a turd on the table, but then never responding to points raised by blog participants? He may think that he doesn't need to respond. However, it is evident that his failure to engage does nothing for his cause, and exposes his weak arguments.

Sancho
Here are others saying exactly the SAME thing from reputable sources which won't cause you to get all hot and bothered.

Some of your complaints don't even apply to my post. Not sure where you were surfing. I'm sure you were just a little confused.

There were four links only:

1. Al Gore's Carbon Trading
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

2.I see you simply ignored the Wall Street Journal reference link re Maurice Strong.

3. Another Rothschild link for you saying exactly the same thing.
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=90090

4. I see you simply ignored the information about Pachauri link.

You got obsessed with the links rather than the facts. Any complaints about these links?

You seem to think its OK that the Leading IPCC Climate Scientist has no relevant related qualifications. Being a Railway Engineer is probably about the standard you will accept to back up your AGW ideas.

Re CRU emails. I'm concerned you failed to read them on the net and that I would have to post them here but here is the exact mathematical equation with FUDGE FACTOR actually written in.

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

Now is that CLEAR enough? FUDGE FACTOR.. do you see it?

I can't wait for your reply. I wonder how many of your AGW friends here believe that multiplying answers by 3/4 is real science like you do?

Your question about where have the skeptics been for the last 50 yrs makes no sense. Scientists have been protesting about this nonsense for a very long time but you have not researched it. They even protested when Al Gore tried the Global Cooling scam in the 70's which also failed.

Bigmal, excellent post,

"I have acquaintances [warmists] outside OLO who are loons of the same ilk. With your permission I'll cut and paste your comments above and make epistles of them, however futile."

Ken H Good post.

But not having the evidence is no problem for these guys, they'll just make it up!

Here is what one of these Scientists said:

"[We] have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." -Dr. Stephen Schneider quoted by Dixy Lee Ray in Trashing the Planet (1990)

Schneider is one of the leading IPCC scientists, who by the way, used to believe in Global Cooling.