It seems that Poirot is right...sections of big oil are interfering in the AGW debate:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/02/14/rockefellers-behind-scruffy-little-outfit/

I'm sure she'll find some reason to pretend this isn't true.

While addressing Poirot she linked to this article:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/12/06/freedom-information-laws-used-climate-sceptics-rifle-through-scientists-daily-emails

A good part of that silly article relied on the work of Australian Stephan Lewandowsky. If Poirot thinks Monckton is an embarrassment for sceptics she should acquaint herself with the work of Mr Lewandowsky to find out to just what ridiculous lengths warmists are prepared to go in their search for ways to attack sceptics now that the climate data is co-operating.

By not co-operating I mean that temps haven't increased for 16 to 20 years depending on which dataset you read. I know that is another one of those things Poirot likes to pretend isn't true, but unfortunately for her, that data doesn't lie.

mhaze,

I'm sure qanda is just about to reply to your bunkum.

I'm not going to bother to reply to the bunkum you served me...(we've been through it all before)

Monckton is a clown - and he's one of the denialist's "leading lights) - says it all : )

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/01/09/lord-monckton-heads-down-under-to-remind-australians-there-is-no-global-warming/

Poirot, you on the button girl :)

.

mhaze:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5595#155034

Methinks there are obvious similarities between you and Geoffrey.

If you want to be taken seriously, please try and understand the ‘science’ – including why CO2 is a significant component of the enhanced greenhouse effect.

You say “No one knows what would happen to temps if there was suddenly no CO2 but the earth becoming a snowball isn't on.”

Really?

My advice to mhaze (and his fellow travellers) is the same as that to Geoffrey - do some undergraduate study in real ‘science’ like;

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item5562946/?site_locale=en_GB

before you spruik ignorance for all and sundry to see.

.

Just some facts for mhaze to help in his understanding:

“the efficacy of CO2 as a GHG is logarithmic ie it decreases with concentration. each new tonne or whatever of CO2 is less efficent at trapping heat than the previous one.”

True, but oh so simplistic (I didn’t even mention efficacy, btw). What mhaze fails to understand is that Earth’s atmosphere is nowhere near approaching saturation or levels of concentration for the relationship to have a significant effect.

“its estimated that a doubling of CO2 (to around 600ppm) would increase temps by 1c if nothing else changed.”

mhaze’s assertion?
Why does he not cite his references/sources?
Why does he not cite the uncertainty or provide 95% confidence levels?

Perhaps mhaze should write a paper and get it published like the rest of us have to.

* the whole CAGW theory blah, blah, blah … *

mhaze is wrong in so many ways:

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item5562946/?site_locale=en_GB

Behave like a 'dufus' if you want mhaze but I didn't even allude to CAGW (although I notice ‘deniers’ of AGW always slip the ‘C’ prefix in there - as in catastrophic). No, I think a 2-3 degrees C rise in GMT or a 60-80 cm rise in GMSL by 2100 (say) is bad enough, but it won’t be CATASTROPHIC.

Notwithstanding, you won't be around to see the effects of 'deny-n-delay'.

@ Warmair

You cannot possible believe in AGW due to “THE SCIENCE” , since you clearly do NOT understand THE DATA!.

This was my question:
" what percentage of atmospheric CO2 --does THE SCIENCE tell s-- is derived from human activities?"
And this was your answer:
“The level of co2 prior to the industrial revolution was about 280 PPm. The current level of co2 is 395 PPm. The increase of 115 PPm is almost certainly entirely due to human activities. Therefore the answer to your question is 29%.”

WRONG! ( Stay back after class with Al Gore who claimed it was 50% of all atmospheric CO2!)

What you derived from the warmist website was the % increase ( the supposed % increase) in the anthropogenic component since the industrial revolution.

The actual % of CO2 in the atmosphere that “THE SCIENCE” says was derived from human activities is variously estimated at between 3-5% .

Now, I don’t blame you Warmair for not knowing, since most warmist sources studious avoid citing the anthropogenic CO2 figure –I wonder why?

Geoffrey mk-III?

Pepé Le Pew mk-11?