Flats, there is very little new to bring to these discussions. Its the same old denialist conspiracy theories over and over again. AGW climate science is quite mature as it has been going 20 years, probably more, and there is very little that is new and ground-breaking.
I don't need to discredit these AGW skeptic authors - they are typically a geologist with no climate science credentials and a vested interest in the status quo (Ian Plimer), a nutter (Lord Monckton), TV weather presenter (Joanne Nova) someone on the (under-the-radar payroll) of Exxon (Tim Ball), a jack-of-all-trades trying his hand at climategate email analysis (I've forgotten his name already) or lone voices outside of the dominant paradigm who do have qualifications (Richard Lindzen, although apparently he does believe in 90% of AGW).
They usually seem to fit into one of those categories. Strange but true.
Yes I am aware that some grant monies for AGW research do come from big oil. I'm not saying they are all fighting against it. Also it is now the captains of industry that are jumping up and down the most saying we need to do something very quickly post-Copenhagen. But I do believe that shadowy organisations like the SPPI and the Lavoisier Group (are they still around or have they disappeared in a puff of irrelevancy?) are hangovers from the halcyon days of large corporate lobbying, propaganda and disinformation.
Banjar, I recommend a high school maths refresher for you (maybe you can join GoGlenroy?), and while you are there, do a couple of science classes and ask whether CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and how long it stays in the atmosphere. Also, can we PLEASE see one peer reviewed paper that says something along the lines of H20 is the major greenhouse gas and any changes in the concentration of CO2 have an insignicant impact on temperature? It really defies logic because H2O/water vapour is a function of temperature, but I would like to see some evidence of your suggestion if it exists.
Awright - you say that "CO2 is not capable to absorb and reflect any significant heat by itself". That is a nonsense statement. Even your precious Lindzen refutes that one (thanks Mowibble). Refresher science course for you as well, perhaps? And take GG with you.
Lou - you are clutching at straws, as per usual mate. The fact that the climate has changed in the past (duh, really?) is not a disproof of AGW, and the vague hope that some other cause might magically appear to save your bacon isn't either. I can see that refresher science class is going to be mighty crowded!
