All of the points in the 'yes' camp are bunkum and easily dismissed

1 Svante Arrhenius's experiments with radiation passing through air in a test-tube does not establish that CO2 can warm air. Arrhenius made several mistakes in his experiment; Firstly, he used radiation of 9.7 microns; CO2 primarily affects radiation at 14.77 microns; water is the dominant greenhouse gas at the radiation band Arrhenius used, so what he proved is that water vapor can cause heating. Secondly, Arrhenius believed the glass tube he used was impervious to inra-red radiation; it isn't which is where the misnomer of the greenhouse effect comes from; what warms a greenhouse is the absence of convection which is what Arrhenius also measured; glass like CO2 absorbs and reemits radiation instantly; CO2 does not delay or block radiation; what CO2 does do is collisionally transfer some energy to the relatively inert gases, N2 and O2, which make up 99% of the atmosphere; but even this is a relatively minute heating effect with the vast bulk of the atmosphere being heated by conductive transfer with Earth's surface. The Earth's average temperature is 288K; the greenhouse temperature is 33K of that total and CO2 supplies less than 1/2 of that, and human CO2 about 3% of that 1/3. 2 The current warming is most likely due entirely to TSI, total solar insolation; figure 6.5 from TAR clearly shows an excellent correlation between TSI and temperature movements since 1700: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-5.htm In addition TSI has been declining since 2000 coinciding with a temperature decline: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod The basic lie of CO2 causing the recent warming or any warming is that CO2 warming is infra-red or long-wave [LW] based; LW cannot warm the oceans; it does not have the energy to penetrate water; since the warming of the world is ocean based [see Compo and Sardeshmukh, White and Cayan,Stockwell and Cox] this warming cannot be due to CO2. 3 The " standard greenhouse model" is fundamentally flawed as Gerlich and Tscheuschner [G&T], Kramm and others have shown. The criticism G&T have received from the likes of Foster and Halpern has been ill-conceived because this criticism did not understand that G&T were explaining the basic difficulties in measuring the flawed and ill-conceived greenhouse concept; as noted this concept has never been adequately explained. The consensus idea that anthropogenic global warming [AGW] is real because a majority of scientists support it is a thoroughly unscientic idea; it is also incorrect; there are many scientists who gone against the official support of AGW, arguably some of the best climate scientists in the world. the consensus idea also ignores the considerable pressure brought to bear on scientists who are employed by government agencies such as CSIRO, BoM, NASA and the EPA to conform to the 'company' line But even if there were a real consensus it would not establish the veracity of AGW; as one of the leading scientists of the 20thC, Richard Feynman, said: "The exception proves that the rule is wrong." That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong." Science is not decided by majority vote; it is an oppressive concept which shows the desperation of the AGW supporters. 4 The CRU climate scandal and many other examples of fudging and fraud by the AGW camp clearly establish that there is a concerted effort to manipulate data to conform to AGW. Only recently the NIWA, which prepares New Zealand's official temperature record using methods similar to Australia's official temperature, was successfully sued on the basis of that record being manipulated and adjusted unfairly. There is clear evidence that the Australian record has also been manipulated, as has the official IPCC record from GISS. This is wrong. 5 A final point; wiki, real climate and skeptical science are authorities for nothing; these are all pro-AGW sites which are completely partisan and therefore not reliable. I see that the alleged rebuttal of Watts' critique of official temperature data by Menne has been referred to. I’ve been trying to get a handle on the time line of when NOAA published their rebuttal and Watts his follow up and his reply to Menne. Here’s the NOAA effort: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf Here’s the Watts reply: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/ Here’s the Menne paper: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf And here’s the fulsome reply to Menne by Watts and D’Aleo; http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf As well as this exchange Tamino entered the fray with this post: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/dropouts/ But Tamino has overlooked several points. The first is his comment that satellites and ground based temps are in accord; no doubt over the whole period from 1979 to now they are, but what about from 1998: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to/trend From 1979 to 1998: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1998/trend Tamino goes on to make 2 main charges against Watts and D’Aleo; the first is that they are stupid for asserting that by getting rid of colder, rural stations NOAA has produced a cooler temperature trend; if indeed that is what D&A did assert they would be silly; what they did say is that by getting rid of the colder sites the average temp over the whole site range would be warmer; nothing about trends. Now the GMST is the benchmark of AGW; people can gesticulate and hand-wave about trends but if the temp, the GMST, is warmer then you have an argument which supports AGW. And that is what removing the colder sites accomplished. Tamino side-steps this by putting up a GISStemp graph showing no temp drop at the time of the removal of the colder sites; but this is a anomaly trend graph; it shows the change in temp of the remaining sites not the change in GMST created by the absence of the cold sites. The second mistake by Tamino is that D&A were wrong to say: “The number of stations that dropped out tended to be disproportionally rural –” Tamino says this is wrong because since there were more rural stations to begin with then as a fraction actually more urban stations were lost; but look at the graph: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/fraction.jpg There is a drop in urban sites but that is more than matched by an increase in suburban sites; in % terms the rural station increase has been exceeded by the combined increase in suburban and urban stations. The only conclusion is that Watts' original critique of the official temperature record is correct and that Menne's attempt to legitimise that record was ill-conceived. The oceans comprise the bulk of the Earth's surface. From what I have read, It takes full wavelength sunlight to warm the oceans. Atmospheric CO2 does not warm the oceans. The thermal aspect of CO2 vs the other atmospheric components suggests increases in CO2 should actually be somewhat neutral or have a cooling effect as it displaces water vapor. So, the energy is reduced via a lower humidity and is not imbalanced as claimed. This has now been verified in the upper Troposphere where more heat is found escaping into space. So, warming effects ascribed to CO2 increases are offset via reduced water vapor. From a % point, this would render the effects of atmospheric CO2 as almost negligible.