[xyzer]

Sorry there is nothing more you can contribute to this thread century?
Frankly in the past couple of years on this thread I have yet to read anything meaningful from you on the Global Warming myth? You are a "believer" who will accept no contra evidence?

Here is another opinion by an Australian Scientist which migh help drive the nail home.
No smoking hot spot | The Australian

From the reference..

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Can you and Pooey also take Lord Keynes advice? The recently measured facts have shown that logically(that means with evidence) human released CO2(energy consumption) has not been the primary cause of the climate warming late in the last century?. I repeat we are talking about FACTS in the form of satellite measurement
disproving predictions of computer models which PREDICTED rather than proved?
It has actually grown cooler in the last 5 years when the IPCC models predicted it would grow warmer??????

Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

Incidentally your.AMO?

"It alternately obscures and exaggerates the global increase in temperatures due to human-induced global warming."

Is AMO not a natural(non manmade) influence on climate that transcends human CO2 as a primary driver of climate? Does not your statement assume that human caused CO2 is the primary driver but can be, and is, overcome by other Natural factors. Which is answering the question by showing CO2 is the culprit but can be influenced? Crazy logic. Shouldn't we just start out by saying Natural factors (the sun) is the primary climate driver and there are a myriad of other influemnces including human created CO2??