2011-11-09 20:46:39Doug Cotton slagging off SkS at The Conversation
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
143.238.130.246

Just FTY, Doug Cotton waxing eloquent about SkS in the comments thread:

http://theconversation.edu.au/celebrate-a-carbon-tax-then-take-three-steps-to-a-zero-carbon-australia-4199#comments

2011-11-09 22:47:04I'm liking Mark Harrigan's dual with Doug Cotton
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
143.238.130.246

Comment from Mark in the thread linked to above:

SKS ALWAYS uses links to peer reviewed science and evidence to buttress their arguments
You use none, zip, zilch 
Numerous peer reviewed papers establishing the reality of CO2 forcing and human induced warming have referred to you countless times. They each explain quite well the basic physics.

There have also been several attempts by me and others to explain the basic physics. But I don't propose to repeat that yet again for you as it is pointless for those who are evidence immune.

But you might choose to read and learn??

The basics of the greenhouse effect are explained here

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Published by the American Institute of Physics.

And a simple explanation from NASA as to how CO2 causes warming 
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page7.php

And here's several papers from highly credible journals about AGW if anyone is interested.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

"Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate."

and http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1?isAuthorized=no

"This provides direct evidence for significant changes in the greenhouse gases over the last 34 years, consistent with concerns over the changes in radiative forcing of the climate."

and

Rosenzweig et al (2008). "Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change" 
Nature 453, 353-357. 
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Rosenzweig_etal_1.pdf

"Here we show that these changes in natural systems since at least 1970 are occurring in regions of observed temperature increases, and that these temperature increases at continental scales cannot be explained by natural climate variations alone."

and this

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.131.3867 where the abstract says... 
"Previously published work using satellite observations of the clear sky infrared emitted radiation by the Earth in 1970, 1997 and in 2003 showed the appearance of changes in the outgoing spectrum, which agreed with those expected from known changes in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases over this period. Thus, the greenhouse forcing of the Earth has been observed to change in response to these concentration changes."

And here is an excellent paper on the greenhouse effect (Jan 2011) by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert 
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf 
""The CO2 greenhouse effect is directly visible in satellite observations of the "bite" taken out of the IR spectrum near 667cm-1, a feature whose detail s agree precisely with results of calculations based on first-principles radiative transfer calculations."

Not to mention the more recent evidence published in "Climate Research" would also suggest that, despite claims to the contrary, global climate has NOT changed by as much as it has recently in 20,000 years (http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v48/n1/p5-11).

They all say pretty much the same thing Mr Cotton.

The best science, based on measured increases in CO2 levels, the basic physics of the (somewhat misnamed but real) greenhouse effect, and the measured satellite observations of reduced long wave IR precisely where you would expect CO2 absorption and remissions to occur. 
We can be grateful that warming has slowed somewhat in the last 10 years thanks to the natural variations – which are well explained and illustrated herehttp://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-spm-2-l.png 
(which by the way is the whole point of the SKS posts if you bothered to read them)

I understand that's a bit confusing for you and you choose to see cooling.

But that's okay, the rest of us can actually read the evidence :)