We seem to have some erudite AGW exponents commenting here.Now here is a chance to put your knowledge where you mouth is.

I have searched the WEB looking for a simple practical experiment that tests the potency of CO2 in terms of heat retention.There seems to be none.All we need is a number of controlled,enclosed environments that have a constant temps and the capacity to vary and acurately measure CO2 concentrations.There of course be a control that has 300 ppm of CO2 equal to pre-industrial concentrations.Why rely on computer models when there are practical experiments that are better.Is it they cannot fudge the results as with computer modelling?

I bet that given 1 million molecules of ambient air,we add 87 molecules of CO2,that temps will not go up measureably.CO2 is supposed to be 11,500 times more effective in retaining heat energy than all the other gases.Since 2000 CO2 concentrations have gone from 369ppm to 387ppm.This is a 26% incease in 10 yrs.Why have temps gone down since 1998 when we have an expodential increase in CO2? Have a look at the satellite photo of GB,it is totally covered in snow.Coldest winter in 31 yrs.

So there is the challenge Keith Davies and others;find me this simple experiment.All we here from critics of C Monckton is ad hominem attacks but no analysis of the science.Here's your change to prove your point and keep your Govt funding.

One thing that Geoff Davies, snake, E.Sykes, Jedimaster, and Agnostic avoid is the basic truth that there is no scientific basis for the assertion that human activity causes other than negligible global warming.

There is evidence that the production of CO2 by human activity is so small as to be negligible. There is not even evidence that when there was warming, up to 1998, that it was caused by CO2.

The depths to which the fraudsters and their supporters will sink is frightening. There has been no global warming since 1998 and to that date there was .7 of a degree. Seven tenths of one degree is all that these criminals had, upon which to base their predictions of catastrophe, and no acceptable basis for ascribing it to civilization.

Nooa now has to be added to the accomplices, along with Hadley, in this attempted fraud, because it has recast its information to “hide the decline”. One has to go to Roy Spencer’s site for true figures, cast in the form in which they were formerly displayed by these miscreants.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

stevenmeyer, as you say “Hansen freely admits that most glaciologists do not agree with his analysis.”. This is because it is wrong. The conformation of the Greenland ice sheet makes Hansen’s assertions laughable, but why would that worry Gore’s right hand man. Lying is a way of life to them.

As to Plimer suing, you display extreme ignorance in asserting that there is any significance in this, and it is for the opposite reason that Gore does not sue his critics, who are more forthright than Moonbat.

Colinsett, you are right. the warmer’s hogwash is much less convincing than the hogwash of Von Daniken. Speaking of hogwash, Gore now says that ony 40% of global warming is caused by human activity, so he is only 40% lying now, compared with the assertions in his scurrilous 35 lies in 90 minutes film, where he was 100%.

Thank you Christopher Monckton.

Leigh, if you read this (and if you really exist):

even you would be embarrassed to have written this.

So much hot air! What about the starving people who cannot afford to buy food. How many times have developed nations reneged on their promises to third world peoples! And now they have found another way to rip off the poor. Shame on you all who persist in trumpeting the perils of global warming.
Even if it is happening, we must deal with the needs of the poor and oppresded in our world first, both here in Australia - aka Peter Spencer, and out there where they are eating mud pies.

This heavy weight dude is supposed to be one of the leading propagandists for the so called skeptics. But who are all fully paid up true believers in the now dominant religion of scientism. With sometimes some Judeo-Christian religiosity thrown in.

You know, go forth and multiply and SUBDUE the Earth. That is turn everything into rubble hamburgers.

And yet his "argument" such as it is, is a string of straw man arguments, emotive buzzwords, and the making assertions which are completely out of context.

If this rant were submitted to any respectable academic journal it would be thrown in the rubbish bin. It would also be given an F triple minus fail in even half-way decent sociology or politics 101 class, whether at a university or secondary college.

Of course the young liberals would love it and probably publish it on their website(s) too.

Plus the good "lord" hangs out with and is promoted by "conservatives" that (at least when its suits them) make much of the use of closely reasoned arguments based on careful research and the use of factual information (as much as that is possible). They also (when it suits them) decry the use of emotionalism and irrationalism.
They also decry the decline of academic standards in the academy altogether.

And yet this rant breaks all of these parameters--by more than a country mile.

Note too, that Quadrant, the "leading" Australian journal of culture and ideas is advertising all of the good "lords" Oz speaking venues.

Geoff Davies. You would enjoy reading (if you haven't already done so) Peter Doherty in the December "Monthly".