Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas not CO2 as the IPCC wants us to believe?

You know all these global warming religious zealots that preach the end is nigh never ever mention one very important thing.

That is that water vapor is the dominant green house gas here on Earth and not CO2.

I wonder why they never ever mention this fact at all, i would like TV to refute this one if he can?

As a matter of fact if we took all the trace gases away which by the way includes CO2, since its only a trace gas at 0.039% of the Earth's total atmosphere.

Thats the total amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is 0.039%, manmade CO2 in our atmosphere is only 0.00195%.

That is if we could eliminate these trace gases like CO2, methane, ozone etc etc from our atmosphere we would still be left with 95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect.

That 95% OF THE EARTH'S greenhouse effect.

Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect, CO2 occupies a small part of that 5% thats remaining.

Water vapour at the equators is about 4% of the atmosphere and at the poles about 0.04%.

Now since we have the carbon tax thanks to JuLIAR Gillard & Bob Brown/Christine Milne we have promised to reduce our CO2 emissions thats all 1.5% of all manmade CO2 emissions by 2020.

Just exactly how will we achieve this??

By buying carbon credits to offset the amount of CO2 we send up into the atmosphere.

We're not going to reduce our CO2 output by 2020 as a matter of fact we are going to increase our CO2 output by 2020.

The only thing that will make this all legitimate will be the purchase of carbon credits for all the extra CO2 we send up into the atmosphere.

But hold on a minute here didn't Al Gore say back in 2006 that we only have 5 to 10 years to turn things around before we go past the point of no return.


HHMMMMM so thats how governments save us from doom and destruction by buying extra carbon credits to offset our ever increasing CO2 emissions.

Now is that a scam or not???

In any other arena it would be..........why not in the global warming religion???????????

 

Why do you have to lie to make your points? Does the truth offend you?

The role of water vapour as a greenhouse gas is discussed in scientific circles to great lengths.

The problem with CO2 is that we are producing it and producing it in large amounts. This causes warming. Warming causes EVAPORATION. This puts more water vapour into the atmosphere. More vapour causes more warming. It's one of the feedback mechanisms.

Stop telling lies and actually bother to do research beyond right wing blogs that probably also have pages on why Evolution, The Big Bang and the age of the Earth are wrong.

Stop mentioning Al Gore. He is not a scientist. All you do is tell lies and cast red herrings.

 

Mate, I gave up arguing with D&D months ago, it's like listening to a cracked record, the same old same old over and over again, no proof, no evidence, just crap he has dredged up from the bowels of the internet, after I kept following his links and nearly always came up with either a scam, outright lies, misrepresentation of facts or just plain old strawmen I stopped following his leads to nowhere. He doesn't understand simple things like per capita and it's importance as a statistical method. His outright insult to scientists did it for me, I know he relies on science, wow it was scientists that created computing as we know it today, that help us every day in pathology, medicine, food technology etc.

He has a one eyed view of this subject and like his idol Abbott, will never see reality. If you could have a reasonable debate with D&D I would, but you cannot, so what's the use.

Like I have said over and over again, he may be right, but then he is most probably wrong. If he is right, we loose a few million dollars and we clean up our act, if however he is wrong, well then he will be very glad we didn't listen to his tripe.

 

The amount of co2 currently in our atmosphere could well be highest level in 20 million years, but it is definitely the highest in the last thousand. Just because it is seemingly a small amount doesn't mean no effect, that's crazy. Water to salt ratio in the ocean is 3:100. So adding more salt or taking it away shouldnt effect this balance based on your theory. It is such a silly argument.

 

Sorry boys but you really do like p!ssing against the wind dont you.

I would like to see something other than opinion, if you have something show then bring it on, if you haven't its all hot air i'm afraid.

Lets see in the real world CO2 has increased and water vapor decreased???

Yet the IPCC's computer models are saying that when there is an increase in CO2 there is an increase in water vapor.

Sh!t in sh!t out.

Hey dom in what life have you ever been able to refute what i post (posts from skepticalscience blog)----in your imagination i suppose good on ya champ you know those guys are Al Gore disciples.

TV as usual you have SFA.

And tank how can you believe anything in the IPCC's AR5 when they have done 180 u turns on some of the hypothesis of AR4, thats why global warming needs a consensus and why the science is far from settled.

But lads you fail to address the other point, if our CO2 emissions will increase by 2020 and the only way we can show on paper that they have decreased is to offset the CO2 emissions with the purchasing of carbon credits.

How does this slove your problem of polluting the earth.

Dom you're living like a mol and suffering for what???

So Al Gore's electricity bill can go on being superhigh.

What a wasted effort for no gain - feel sorry for people like you who have swalled the AGW religion hook line and sinker and impose retrictions on them selves while people like Al Gore just have a little chuckle at your stupidity.

Them's the breaks dude go on suffering while our CO2 emissions just keep on keeping on.

I suppose your in favour of Martin ferguson calling for peak prices at peak hour too!!!!!!!

 

There is consensus on AGW.....97% of climate scientists conclude this is the case. Denialist want us to believe that while there is still debate on the issue the case isn't closed. What a load of crap dumb....lol.
Yeah, let 3% of Exxon funded climate scientist hold up the progress in addressing the planet and humanities sustainable future while they make a few 100billion more. Wake up dude...

Again, it's not the amount Co2 in comparison to other elements it is simply its part that it plays at the level it is.

 

Get your facts right dude before posting your global warming retorich.

 

D&D, religious fanatics invariably lack the capacity to absorb any doctrine that`s contrary to their religious beliefs. How often do you see a rabbi shopping for a "pork, bacon & ham" cook book?

 

So you pluck out random sh!t from the web that fits your deluded conspiracy views and bombard threads with endless stats that come straight from denialists who blissfully represent information with an obvious motivation to appease certain entities with vested interests in opposing the science.

The following are the findings from numerous science societies: They are not statements from individuals -which are sources you tend to hinge your ideas and conspiracies on dumb, but from reputable organisations, represented by collective bodies of scientists.

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and if it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.
Scientific Societies
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (October, 2009)
American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases." (August 2012)
American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (November 2007)
American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)
American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (December 2006)
Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries." (October 2006)
American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change

"There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century." (July 2004)
National Science Academies
U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (pdf)

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)
International academies: Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (pdf)

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring." (2005, 11 national academies of science)
International academies: The Science of Climate Change

"Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified." (2001, 16 national academies of science)
Research
National Research Council of the National Academies, America’s Climate Choices

"Most of the recent warming can be attributed to fossil fuel burning and other human activities that release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." America's Climate Choices, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010
U.S. Climate Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)

"Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."

Doran surveyed 10,257 Earth scientists. Thirty percent responded to the survey which asked: 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? and 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Naomi Oreskes

"Oreskes analyzed 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the ISI database with the keywords 'climate change.'... Of all the papers, 75 percent either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that global warming is happening and humans are contributing to it; 25 percent dealt with methods or ancient climates, taking no position on current anthropogenic [human-caused] climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, IPCC, 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level”

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

IPCC defines "very likely" as greater than 90% probability of occurrence.
Sign-on Statements
The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change: Scientists’ letter to the U.S. Congress. Statement signed by 18 scientists.
"We want to assure you that the science is strong and that there is nothing abstract about the risks facing our Nation." (2011)
Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
Signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences. "... For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet. ... The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. ...Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation." (2010)
U.S. Scientists and Economists' Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

"We call on our nation's leaders to swiftly establish and implement policies to bring about deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions. The strength of the science on climate change compels us to warn the nation about the growing risk of irreversible consequences as global average temperatures continue to increase over pre-industrial levels (i.e. prior to 1860). As temperatures rise further, the scope and severity of global warming impacts will continue to accelerate." (200
Increase Your Leadership on Global Warming: A Letter from California Scientists

"If emissions continue unabated, the serious consequences of a changing climate for California are likely to include a striking increase in extreme heat and heat-related mortality, significant reductions in Sierra snowpack with severe impacts on water supply, mounting challenges to agricultural production, and sea-level rise leading to more widespread erosion of California’s beaches and coastline." (2005)

 

Hey TV

What these organisation are spouting publicly doesn't necessarly reflect what individual scientists working within that organisation really think.

These organisations are basing their science on papers we have alraedy discussed on here from people like Micheal Mann and his shonkey stick.

Now i can go through all those statements that you have found and printed and find counter claims by other organisations an scientists that refute them, but what will it prove, we can go back and forth all day/night long.

The only thing it proves is the science is not settled by a long shot, as many more individual scientits that are not on anybodys payroll are coming out aginst global warming.

About that article I didn't pluck anything from the internet that suited my cause, thats how this consensus was formed or born or whatever else you want to call it. This consensus that 98% of scientists believe in global warming, thats how it happened dude get it through your head.

Or is that a conspiracy as well???? Where is your evidence that that isn’t how it happened?

Science or Science fiction
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full.pdf+html

As an example

This statement has been refuted not by me but by other scientists look here,

 

So true aussie, so true. LOL.

 

Who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) what you've discussed previously, it's a case of individuals as opposed to collective individuals from a huge variety of bodies. Unless you are an expert in the field you have nothing. You are a consummate conspiracy theorist to say the least. Your only motivation to grasp at straws on this issue is to support your stupid conspiracies by simply grabbing all you can from the web to support your stupidity.

Your right though, most of last remaining climate scientists are skeptics, which doesn't mean they discount AGW, they are simply scientists who are unsure based on their own individual studies.

You are right, we could go back and forth on the statements of others: you could provide responses from your individual scientists (which are not completely denying of AGW, they are just skeptics), with my collective scientists represented by reputable scientific bodies. There is a big difference.

But wait, I hear you say: every single scientist on every single society are being paid by bankers and al gore! .....lol. So this must mean that your random individual science skeptics or deniers are employed by Exxon Mobil.

You are being outright silly!

 

I could say the same thing about you??

You mean like the Australian doctor who found a cure for stomach ulcers and the rest of the medical doctors called him a nutter because of the "consensus" at the time as to what caused stomach ulcers was settled?

Like i told you before an organisations spouts what the top dogs believe in not what all scientists working in the field under their employement believe in.

For every scientific paper that tries to confirm global warming is indeed happening there is a scientific paper to refute it.

Then common sense would tell the average person to ask himself well is it settled or isn't it?

The fact that the global warming scientists have made so many 180 degree uturns in the papers and continually update them should have alarm bells ringing that the science isn't settled.

The fact that they wont let sceptics speak at these global warming religious meetings to present their side of the arguement should have alarm bells ringing.

The fact that our mate Al Gore and all the algorians have told us back in 2006 that if we dont change our ways within 5 to 10 years it will be too late and the Earth will destroy humans and life on Earth, yet the solution presnted is to tax people on their energy use while CO2 emissions keep rising should have alarm bells ringing.

Now your talking sh!t, there are just as many skeptics as there are alarmists.

Just becuase organisations have taken a stance on the side of AGW it means SFA.

Simply because there are too many holes in their armour.

No scientists ever claimed that climate change isn't happening, climate change has never stood still and never will, what the whole debate is about is that is it Anthorpogenic warming or is it the natural cycle of the earth?

Bankers have pumped over $50 billion dollars into the global warming religion to prove that its true or at least make the general population think its true.

Why would bankers do that??.....have you got one good reason why?

They also own most of the oil and gas and mining around the world through thier corporations!!!!!!!

They dont want to detsroy oil and gas or mining what they want is to tax us for energy, nothing more nothing less.

How do you about the fact that we are all paying a carbon tax and by 2020 our CO2 emissions will have increased not decreased.

How do you feel about the fact that on paper we will show that our CO2 emissions have decreased by the purchase of carbon credits.

Where is the incentive to clean up CO2 emissions when the dirtiest power stations in our country will reciecve from $3 to $5 billion dollars pre tax monies from the carbon tax and then on top of that increase our bills by 20%.

Is this a system designed to reduce poluution which you are so worried about or is this a system to maintain the farming and selling of carbon credits and their market.

Mate you dont have to be a rocket scientists to work that one out and you dont need scientific papers.

 

At least the Americans have the decency to hear both sides of the arguement.

And when they heard both sides this is how congress grilled Al Gore.

And we think the yanks are dumb???????

Al Gore exposed on Global warming to congress
[video=youtube_share;_1Xnr_Vwi_c]http://youtu.be/_1Xnr_Vwi_c?t=1m49s[/video]

 

This is simply more denialist speculation and cheap story telling. 97% of climate scientists believe in AGW, which gives the issue consensus...!

The global warming petition project was only made up of .1% of climatologists out of the 30,000 signatures. Funnily enough started by exxon. The other factor is that there are around 30,000 climatologist in the world...Go Figure!

Provide a link that indicates how many "Climate Scientists" there are and how many refute AGW outright, otherwise it is just cheap speculation.

Maybe you are making reference to Sceptics changing their minds re: Prof. Muller .http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/08/15/3568554.htm .

Where's your link. I suppose it's just another cheap website.

Yes, if we reach 450ppm, there is a suggestion that things will become difficult. We are currently at around 395ppm. We are adding 3 ppm every year, so won't be too far away. Remember we have never reached these current levels in the past 20million years not alone reaching 450ppm. Yes it is only seemingly a small amount, but again the salt ratio in oceans water is only 3%, so can we take salt out or add to it without major consequence to our ecosystems.

The world was a completely different place when carbon was in the 1000 ppm 500million years ago, it was a time when flora was flourishing but fauna was no where to be seen.

Bullsh!t, prove it.

So individual findings, or non reputable individuals, especially ones not trained in the area of climatology, mean more than numerous reputable societies made up of most climatologists.

Too many holes in your posts.

Of course bloody climate change isn't standing still but it becomes a little suspicious when increases in temperature are coinciding with factors concerning man. Take this graph for instance

Why do many businesses spend millions on advertising and donate to charity?

This is such a contradiction...the bankers want to convince AGW is real and on the other hand want to protect their fossil fuels. You are so full of desperate speculation that you get twisted and tangled in them yourself.

How twisted, refer to previous response.

In real terms they would have decreased and obviously taking into consideration carbon offsets. There already has been a 8% decrease in CO2 in Australia, as a consequence of the GFC and carbon price.

All part of the plan to ensure the impacts aren't too great. If they price these guys into immediate extinction, what do you think will be the consequences? The coalition has also stated they would support power stations with subsidies via Greg Hunt.

 

Why is it denialist, are you trying to tell me the scientists (the grunts that do all the technical work) employed by these organisations actually have a say in how their work is presented to the public??????

Whether you want to accept it or not??!! fact is thats how the 98% consensus came around.

Here it is again for you to comprehend.

So you say, are their really 31000 scientsits in all those varied backgrounds working for oil and gas companies??

Sometimes in order to prove your point you do get abit delusional.

Now get a grip on things i said for every scientific paper that tries to confirm global warming is indeed happening there is a scientific paper to refute it.

You want to chase up numbers go ahead.

At least the skeptics dont call him names and want to jail or even kill him, he has the right to beleive in whatever he wants to.

Joanne Nova was an alarmist now she has become one of the biggest skeptics in Oz.
http://joannenova.com.au/

No i'll give it to you straight from the horses mouth an ex IPCC official who talks about climategate and how alarmists should give skeptics the stage and try to knock the alarmists of the perch.

So there are honest people working for the IPCC
[video=youtube_share;F4V-vrT-HW8]http://youtu.be/F4V-vrT-HW8?t=5s[/video]
[video=youtube_share;PLV3oBDXD7E]http://youtu.be/PLV3oBDXD7E?t=1s[/video]

If the science is in what have they got to be worried about?...

Dude when we had 7000ppm life on Earth flourished.


Dude skeptics and alarmists all agree that if our current level of CO2 doubled which could take about 150 years the Earth's temperature would rise about one degree celcius.

If we go to 760ppm the temperature would rise one degree celcius so where are you getting couldbe in trouble at 490ppm?????

How about the 30000 on that survey i thin thats a good starting point compared to your 10000 that were sent the two questions that then developed into 98% of all scientists.

This is where you come unstuck dude who says the individual scientists that dispute global warming are not reputable individuals, they are very respected in their field of work and if it hadn't of been for McKitrick we would have never known that Mann manipulated his figures to get the hockey stick.

I see your having a hard time finding them?

Is it from Michael Mann and his institute cause he forgot to add the medievel warm period.

Ok you want to play stupid, where else have bankers EVER pumped that amount of money.

Just one thats all you have to find just one.

Is it a contradiction, who owns nearly all the oil & gas and mining around the world these days????

Dude you should read up on it.

Ok i'll spell it out for you, bankers own nearly all the oil and gas and mining around the world through their corporations, nothing is going to happen to oil and gas or coal or iron ore etc etc. they will continue to dig it out of our back yard faster than the eye can blink and sell it for profit.

CO2 emissions will not go down because it will affect fossil fuels and thats their comodity.

The only thing the carbon tax / ETS will do is tax us on our energy use thats it full stop.

Bullsh!t the forecast is CO2 emissions will increase in Australia by the year 2020.

Yes i've heard Combett saying this??!!??

Ok so which powerstations have been closed, which cars have been put of the road, which planes have been stopped from taking off.

Where is this 8% coming from?????

But dude if CO2 emissions are going to increase and the only offset we have is by buying carbon credits of the market to pay for our extra CO2 in the real world CO2 hasn't decreased its increased,just on paper.

If you want to clean up pollution this is a fail.

 

Exposing the false science behind climate change

[video=youtube_share;uA8KH6G_0hc]http://youtu.be/uA8KH6G_0hc?t=1s[/video]

[video=youtube_share;BgHv9HSuirE]http://youtu.be/BgHv9HSuirE?t=1s[/video]

 

Sorry but I had a similar experience and have now made it a mandate that I will not spend time on any thread that has less content as PPM than a fart in a thunderstorm

 

Good we can do without Algorians, like computers they are just spewing out what the head bishop programmed into them.

 

Three-Quarters of Climate Change Is Man-Made

An independent study quantifies the human and natural contributions, with solar radiation contributing only minimally


A power plant just south of Lansing, Iowa.Image: Flickr/DTWpuck

Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years, reports a pair of Swiss climate modelers in a paper published online December 4. Most of the observed warming—at least 74 percent—is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience.

Since 1950, the average global surface air temperature has increased by more than 0.5 degree Celsius. To separate human and natural causes of warming, the researchers analyzed changes in the balance of heat energy entering and leaving Earth—a new "attribution" method for understanding the physical causes of climate change.

Their findings, which are strikingly similar to results produced by other attribution methods, provide an alternative line of evidence that greenhouse gases, and in particular carbon dioxide, are by far the main culprit of recent global warming. The massive increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times would, in fact, have caused substantially more surface warming were it not for the cooling effects of atmospheric aerosols such as black carbon, they report.

Previous attempts to disentangle anthropogenic and natural warming used a statistically complex technique called optimal fingerprinting to compare observed patterns of surface air temperature over time with the modeled climate response to greenhouse gases, solar radiation and aerosols from volcanoes and other sources.

"Optimal fingerprinting is a powerful technique, but to most people it’s a black box," says Reto Knutti, a climate scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, one of the authors of the report.

A balanced view

Knutti and his co-author Markus Huber, also at ETH Zurich, took a different approach. They utilized a much simpler model of Earth’s total energy budget and ran the model many thousands of times, using different combinations of a few crucial parameters that contribute to the energy budget. These included global values for incoming shortwave radiation from the Sun, solar energy leaving Earth, heat absorbed by the oceans and climate-feedback effects (such as reduced snow cover, which amplifies warming by exposing darker surfaces that absorb more heat).

By using the combinations that best matched the observed surface warming and ocean heat uptake, the authors then ran the so-constrained model with each energy parameter individually. This enabled them to estimate the contribution of CO2 and other climate-change agents to the observed temperature change. Their study was greatly assisted by a 2009 analysis of observed changes since 1950 in Earth’s energy balance, says Knutti.

Knutti and Huber found that greenhouse gases contributed 0.6–1.1 degrees C to the warming observed since the mid-twentieth century, with the most statistically likely value being a contribution of about 0.85 degree C. Around half of that contribution from greenhouse gases—0.45 degree C—was offset by the cooling effects of aerosols. These directly influence Earth's climate by scattering light; they also have indirect climate effects through their interactions with clouds.

The authors calculated a net warming value of around 0.5 degree C since the 1950s, which is very close to the actual temperature rise of 0.55 degree C observed over that period. Changes in solar radiation—a hypothesis for global warming proffered by many climate skeptics—contributed no more than around 0.07 degree C to the recent warming, the study finds.

 

Climate Skeptic Richard Muller Admits Global Warming is Real and Humans are the cause.

[video=youtube;QqPuKxXUCPY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqPuKxXUCPY[/video]

 

This is simple presentation by Stephen Schneider- It's a must watch

[video=youtube;4_eJdX6y4hM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_eJdX6y4hM[/video]

 

As soon as I saw Heartland Institute in clips provided I couldn't be bothered watching. I think this says enough about your desperation.

Here is a little snippet about what this organisation stands for. It can be read in full on the link below.

But the dropping of jaws doesn't end there. Next up, we learn that Heartland paid a team of writers $388,000 in 2011 to write a series of reports "to undermine the official United Nation's IPCC reports". Not critique, challenge, or analyse the IPCC's reports, but "to undermine" them. The agenda and pre-ordained outcome is clear and there for all to see.

Then we move on to the direct funding by Heartland – and its "anonymous donor" – of various climate sceptic scientists:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...rtland-institute-documents-climate-scepticism

 

Exactly,well said, about as often as a denialist reads the facts.

 

That's hilarious considering dumb is using the exact same arguments against AGW as Creationists use against Evolution.