Take a look at http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9799-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect as that says a lot about the invalidity of the Greenhouse effect.

As Dr. Latour says, why do you need a paper to explain this, where simple logic will suffice.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/01/leyland_on_global_warming.html

As to the “settled science” meme, catch Climategate email 1285 at http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/warmist-mike-hulme-agrees-that-debate.html.

Prof Mike Hulme, founding director of the Tyndall Centre (at UEA) and author of the Economist ‘book of the year’ (2009) says the debate is really about politics:

“So while not endorsing this attempt at undermining our basis for current exceptional global warming, I must say I find myself in sympathy with much of what Will Hutton writes. In particular his conclusion that the debate around climate change is fundamentally about power and politics rather than the environment seems undeniable. There are not that many “facts” about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal.
I am copying this to Asher Minns, since Asher has been giving the issue of “sound science” and Tyndall’s reaction to it some thought recently.
Mike”

Thanks, Clarence.

There’s a good depiction of this at http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/latest-satellite-data-human-co2-emissions-have-caused-earth-to-cool-over-past-15-years.html.

Is it worth reproducing that stark graph on the blog?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOuKfQFhiPw&feature=youtu.be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDKSkBrI-TM

1. No warming this century — no child under 15 has experienced global warming.
2. CO2 is only 0.00039 of the atmosphere and cannot possibly dominate it.
3. The IPCC reckons we won’t detect a human influence on the climate for 20 or 30 years.
4. Only incomplete, unverified computer models forecast disaster.
5. Sea level rise has not accelerated and has lately reversed. Polar bears are fine.

I’m not sure about the recovery of the Arctic sea ice extent. Since the “record” low of 2007, summer minima have fluctuated and I don’t see an increasing trend. It’s true there’s a slow increase in southern sea ice extent.

Points 4 and 5 would be further talking points if the audience were interested.

The first three points are simple, persuasive and authoritative. If people knew that the great big mysterious juggernaut of the IPCC now says that, and could see the ramifications, they would be surprised and would probably fire Nick Smith. The EU would have a hard time making their carbon taxes stick.

1. No warming over the last decade – the models are wrong.
2. Sea levels are static. Global sea ice is growing; so is the polar bear population
3.CO2 is less than .04% (390ppm) of the atmosphere, and less than 5% from humans.

And, for anyone interested in the science, we should recognise a broad consensus of scientists that humans are adding to CO2 concentrations, and the greenhouse effect is likely to increase temperatures by an extra amount when levels double after about 2150. That’s about all the Royal Society (UK) is now saying. But that leaves the elephant in the room – HOW MUCH?

154 countries signed up to the UNFCCC at Rio in 1992 (long before the scientists could connect humans to the observed warming) which requires that “CO2 be stabilised at levels that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate”. system”. The same question arises – HOW MUCH?

This is the debate. The one we never had. The question is what level of CO2 concentration would be dangerous? The political, not scientific, answer of 450ppm is total rubbish – based on most recent scientific papers. On this key issue, the science is not settled, and there is no consensus.