I’m willing to be convinced otherwise. If you feel maligned by my comments you are invited to my blog to justify the hockey stick.

Evidence of fraud provided by Climate Audit, via John Pittman. Eric Steig should have been more careful about what he asked for…
In America, truth is always an iron clad defence in libel cases (I don’t know other countries laws so much).

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5054

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/01/30/antarctica-again/

While I realize explaining anything to those unwilling to listen is a wasted effort, the argument you use is so without merit that I cannot help myself. You might as well have said: Methane traps heat (better than CO2). Methane levels have increased. Methane is the cause of global warming. Or better yet for these types of arguments: Sugar causes obesity. There has been an increase in the number of Blue M&Ms (sugar). Blue M&Ms are the cause of increased obesity.

Taking as a fact that the IPCC figure of 0.6C increase over the last 100 years is correct (ignoring the fact that over the last 100 years the error in the figures is greater than the total increase so the temperatures could have increased by a far greater amount or not at all), there has been no indication that the rate of increase in this massive 0.6C was any greater during our heavy CO2 production than it was before 1940 (take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.svg between 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000). Assuming that all the temperature increase was due to CO2 and that CO2 would continue to drive temperature increases, we would still only have a moderate increase in temperature after another 100 years (unless of course you believe in the magical positive feedback forces that will kick in at some point and drive us to extinction).

The question I have is this: How many years of cooling will be required before we can admit that disaster from CO2 isn’t around the corner? 5 years? 10 years? More? Certainly the last 8 years is not enough when we still have reports that 2008 was one of the 10 warmest years in modern history! I would think being lower than the past 8 years would be enough to be reported as being cooler than the previous year (or at least not increasing). The next 3 years will certainly be colder globally. Even the alarmists that produce their end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it predictions will agree to that (as they warn you not to get complacent as our road to doom will continue as soon as the sun gets out of its minimum and on its way up the next cycle). Temperatures should start increasing by 2012 according to many. How many more years of cooling is required? Is it good enough that the temperatures don’t increase or must it be a decrease that will convince you? If we can’t have that, can we at least have a minimum level the temperature must increase by the year 2015? We are far below the track for predicted temperature increase due to CO2. Without throwing a bunch of aerosols in the atmosphere like we appear to do every time the temp doesn’t match the prediction, when can we say the predictions are wrong and move on with cleaning up real pollutants?

High school physics can be used to establish that CO2 traps heat (as a start).

Measurements such as Mauna Loa data (at the very least) establish that GHGs are rapidly increasing — atmospheric concentration of CO2 to 385 ppmv (up almost 40%).

The worlds countries own audited returns to UNFCCC amounted to 18,000,000 tonnes of CO2e in 2006 (Annex I countries only, not including China, etc).

Go read the IPCC 2007 report.

“Where is the science that says GHGs don’t trap heat?
Where is the evidence that there is no increase in GHGs?
(and there isn’t any) so… Where is the evidence that the increase in GHGs is from other than Human sources?”

LOL, where is the evidence that supports AGW?
since you seem to agree with AGW shouldn’t you be the one giving the evidence?
and please real evidence, not just a computer model

just people slanging off at each other!

Where is the science that says GHGs don’t trap heat?

Where is the evidence that there is no increase in GHGs?

(and there isn’t any) so… Where is the evidence that the increase in GHGs is from other than Human sources?

A reader over at Andrew Bolt said it this way, “0.1 deg per decade (Antarctic warming) with an error of plus or minus 3 deg”.

That’s the sort of research Shaviv calls elephant fitting. It features plenty of wiggle so that the author can claim it shows any number of conclusions while avoiding the irksome fraud label.

Another thing that is interesting about the Steig complaint, he apparently has his own stable of reporters on his rolodex.

It’s almost too bad that Moreno responded. I would be interested to see which reporters are in Steig’s pocket.