15 years of no warming despite CO2 emissions continuing
Convenient use of a record high as your starting point. Care to redo your calculations with any other window? Maybe, say, a 20 year window? Or even a 10 year window? What about a 12 year window?
greatly increased Arctic Ice coverage,
[Citation needed] and [Confusing a rebound from a historic low to slightly less historic lows with an increase over average].
increasing Antarctic ice thickness
[Confusing weather with climate] and [Lack of understanding of ice formation]
increasing Antarctic sea ice coverage
[Cherry-picking specific regional ice data points] and [Mistaking surface for volume].
no observed retreat in Himalayan glaciers
[More reading needed]. See also http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n3/abs/ngeo1068.html
I'm just the guy who has been making physical chemistry arguments that show that CO2 has no net effect on the heat capacity of the atmosphere for the last few years
... which has nothing to do with the problem of CO2 trapping IR, or with why the atmosphere is heating up.
arguing instead that what warming we saw was from increased water vapor emissions, which maintain a tight equilibria with their rate of emissions
Water vapor cannot drive long-term heating. A single cold-spell will remove water vapor from the air, which will reduce temperatures, which will remove more water from the air.... Water vapor is the result of warming, not a forcing.
thus the lost decade global growth lead to a lost decade of warming
The global economy was working in overdrive until 2000-2001, and again from 2005 to 2008. Your own data calls you a liar.
bringing AGW idiots to take because they are ignoring the real threat from CO2--ocean acidification and the collapse of already overstressed fisheries.
I'm glad you'll find that all kinds of scientists, but especially marine biologists and oceanographers would love your help in spreading message. Care to sign up maybe with an organization like NOAA or the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute?
But hey, let's all ignore physics
Says the guy who mistakes anecdotes for data, cherry-picks his time frames, misunderstands the overall and problem and thinks that he has a better understanding of physics than Physicists.
Tell you what, write a paper about your insights, and if you're right, the Nobel prize in a few areas is yours. How is that for an incentive to go show up all the AGW believers? You'll be right up there with Galileo, Kopernicus, Pasteur, and a few other up-enders of the consensus.