It’s unbelievable that you would assert this without measuring the variation of this cyclical nature of our heat source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png

which is less than 1 part in 1366.

However, IR trapping gasses that don’t fall out in a few days, CO2 is the top contender and constitute over 95% of the total volume of such gasses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

And CO2 has increased 40%, hardly insignificant.

Dai, *Iron* is a trace element. What happens when you have zero iron (which is at less than 380ppm in your body)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_deficiency_%28medicine%29

But I guess you don’t want skepticism or maths or checking the process. All you want is dogma and AGW to be false.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

Review of above:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E7DF153DF936A35753C1A9659C8B63

Eric Hoffer, 1979 – “Before the Sabbath”
p. 7
“ I am curious about Pechorin, a Russian intellectual of the mid-nineteenth century who wrote a poem on “How sweet it is to hate one’s native land and eagerly await its annihilation.”

When the sun warms so do we…..check the intensity and (shorter) durations of the last 3 solar cycles.
It will probably take the accumulation of more emperical data reinforcing the current cooling trend to scrape the greenies of the anchor.

If you’re interested in learning about climate science then the place to go is IPCC’s most recent assessment of the science. If you’ve been duped into believing that the IPCC isn’t a credible assessment of what we know, then try the U.S. (and other) National Academies, and scientific societies. If you’re looking to debate climate science you should do that either: 1) within the expert scientific community itself (i.e. at meetings or in the relevant journals), or 2) on the websites that like to focus on climate science, most notably Realclimate.org.

Quickly:

The cosmic ray hypothesis is discussed (and found wanting) in some detail on realclimate.org. It is also covered well in the IPCC’s Working Group I report.

Water vapor is a feedback. Warmer air temperatures (say, because of human caused greenhouse gas emissions) lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere which leads to further warming. This basic and well known by scientists but seems to confuse many non-scientists.

The CO2 temperature lag is another canard you almost have to try to fall for. The ice-age/interglacial climate changes were initiated by changes in the earth’s orbit. In response, the carbon cycle responded as a positive feedback (warming triggers the release of greenhouse gases which leads to more warming, or cooling triggers the uptake and storage of greenhouse gases which leads to further cooling). Again, you can find out more about this at realclimate.org or the IPCC (and probably just about any credible source).

CO2 fertilization is far more complicated than you’ve been lead to believe. Some plants may benefit from higher CO2 concentrations, but it depends on the particular species (it can also be expected to alter existing relationships among species). Plants grown at higher CO2 concentration also can have lower nutritional quality (as measured by the ratio of carbon to nitrogen in their tissues). Overall, I think this is not good news.

You seem to confuse climate science with right/left politics. It seems to me that it shouldn’t be hard to accept what the relevant expert scientific community discovers through research (and extensive vetting, and replication, etc.) with whatever preferences you have for the role of government in society. Indeed, politicians on both sides of the political spectrum accept the IPCC assessments. You deceive yourself, and others, when you reject climate science as something from “…all knowing environmental groups on the left” “the all-knowing environmental lobby groups” and “…the red herring used by the left to unwind our economy”.