<<it would be nice to see one, just one, attempt to refute Muller's data>>

Can't say I have read Professor Muller's report yet. However,If its finding is that climate is changing --few would argue with that --climate is always changing, one way or the other.

On the other-hand, if its finding is that climate change is inherently linked to CO2, why would anyone need to re-invent the wheel(?). Professor Ian Plimer has done a magnificent job of debunking that, here:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2011/3299038.htm

Spain is acquiring enormous solar and wind power projects around the world, In 2008 spain spent twenty-billion $ on solar subsidies, the govt; has since withdrawn it's subsidies, in a hope that the industry is now able to be self supporting. Time will tell. The USA has now taken over as the biggest alt; energy producer in the world. The Spanish have contracts in India, Dubai, Puru, etc; With the cost of solar panel's now decreasing greatly, more and more clean power generation is rapidly expanding.

Loudmouth Joe if I make 80 can I top a couple of others instead?
Athonyvc now yes quite true.
But, I bet my last dollar, and any years left, a close review of say Rechtubs true understanding,it could have been others, Hasbeen for sure, would work against their stand.
I am convinced history will support our views.
But too,those on the other side, with not doubt, will claim to have always stood with us!

SPQR , it is a fraud to portray the content of one side in a debate (as your link does) a theory ; as having the same or equivalent credence as the scientific process in the case of Muller.

A fraud, next refutation please because that one doesn't work.

Rather than downloading the audio from SPQR's link, just take the time to read the 21 comments about it, then you'll get the idea.

Downloading the audio probably ends up as a stat supporting that view somewhere, don't bother.

@Thinker 2

<< SPQR , it is a fraud to portray the content of one side in a debate (as your link does) a theory ; as having the same or equivalent credence as the scientific process in the case of Muller>>

It is fraudulent to have a handle like yours ("Thinker 2") and not use your noggin!

1) My previous post was specifically referring to the argument that (is often made) that CO2 and climate change are closely linked. Professor Plimer gives a very succinct refutation of that claim in the link provided.

2) Neither you nor I know much about Professor Muller's "scientific processes". We have only heard about them second or third hand. His arguments need to stand on their merit. They are not entitled to reverence or immunity because they were derived as a result of scientific process!

3) << Downloading the audio Probably ends up as a stat supporting that view somewhere, don't bother>>

"PROBABLY"! "Don't Bother"! Thinker 2?
You didn't even bother to listen, did you?
Once again, zero marks for *thinking*.