Thanks for the correction. No excuse for that.

For the physics of radiant heat transfer (which is the fundemental basis of the greenhouse effect) there is an excellent blog:

http://scienceofdoom.com/

As for compelling evidence of A (with emphasis on the A) GW., there you will have to get help from others. I haven't found any. For compelling evidence of GW on the other hand, google Ice Age. A good book on geology will provide background on climate change over the last few billion years. If you learn some geology, you will learn that CO2 levels have previously been 10 times higher than today, though rarely much lower. You will learn that climate can change dramatically in a very short period of time. You will learn that our climate today is relatively cool compared to almost all time since the earth formed billions of years ago. You will then scratch your head and ask what all the excitement is about. Don't ask someone though. They will call you a skin headed denier of a flat earth creationist.

Umm. McIntyre and McKitrick? Eschenbach? Spencer? Pielke Sr.? All have at least one (Pielke a whole slew) of papers published in peer reviewed literature. There are quite a huge number of others equally or more skeptical. And how is the failure to calibrate a "slight potential source of error". When I do science (engineering actually, which is harder as people sue you if you are wrong), if one of my instruments fails to calibrate, you don't use it as a measurement device. And "hide the decline" was entirely about the failure to calibrate tree rings as a proxy, hence making all of the hockey stick graphs meaningless as measures of temperature. Yes. The results are worthless because the instruments failed to calibrate. Also, Dr. Mullar has stated, in his paper, that there has been no warming in the last ten years. The WSJ, Huffpost, etc., put words in his mouth with about as much integrity as the Daily Mail putting words in Dr. Curry's mouth.

Time frame is critical in these discussions. The area of greatest debate is the medieval warm period(MWP). Up until Mann produced his hockey stick graph, it was accepted that temperatures in the MWP were warmer than today. As such, if this were true, then yes indeed, it hasn't warmed. After the hockey stick, this became an area of debate. McIntyre and McKitrick showed that the statistics of Mann were flawed. Mann countered and there is still debate. The "Hide The Decline" is a separate area of debate. If Mann would be as open as the BEST team, there would be considerably less debate. Much of Mann's reconstruction relies on tree rings. The "temperature record" as recorded by tree rings drops off dramatically after about 1960. The instrument record shows that temperatures were flat, then increasing. This trend was removed from plots of the hockey stick. This is the "decline" that was "hidden". Given that Mann is asserting that tree rings are good thermometers, it is valid to question this assertion when they fail calibration during the time when our ability to accurately compare temperature to tree growth has been best. Recent temperatures, from the end of the little ice age have been increasing. The BEST data clearly shows that temperatures decreased from 1945 to 1975, began rising again then and have been flat since 2000. Temperatures have been rising, they have been falling, they have been flat. So, if you cherry pick, you can support both sides. And both sides are cherry picking. One side tends to be a little nastier in their assertions though. What with the comparison to skin head holocaust deniers, creationists and flat earthers. Given the vitriol of the mainstream, I started to wonder what they had to hide. So I started to look. That is how I became a skeptic.

How about from Dr. Curry herself then.

Here:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/discussion-with-rich-muller/#more-5540

Not sure where this "conspiracy" meme is coming from. Possibly the Laframboise book. Anyway, one doesn't need a conspiracy. Only a whole lot of money to be made. Also, I'm a "denialist" (nice Godwin by the way). Here is what I know to be true.
1: Global Warming is real
2: The greenhouse effect is real
3: CO2 is the second largest contributor to the greenhouse effect
4: While the effect of water is greater, the effect of CO2 will be cumulative, hence we can (mostly) ignore the effect of water.
What pray tell are you suggesting I'm denying?

If you want to read a conspiracy theory, I suggest you go here:

http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318623567&sr=8-1#reader_B005UEVB8Q

One person issuing a press release is hardly a conspiracy. Effective PR move, but a conspiracy? No.

Actually, 390 ppm in the entire atmosphere is the same as a 50% CO2 atmosphere over 5 meters. So, yes, from a radiative heat transfer point of view it is a lot. So much that increases now have a marginal effect. Ironically, if there really were "very little" CO2, then an increase would matter. It is precisely because there is so much in the atmosphere that it doesn't matter much how much more we add, up to about 2,000 to 3,000 ppm where it might begin to impact on respiration. (Yes, I am an expert in radiant heat transfer).

The nice thing about the BEST data is you can see it all, see the methods used and if you want, plot your own. If you do this, you will see that the data has been flat for 10 years. Further, the other data sets (CRU. GISS) have also all been flat for 10 years. It has gotten to the point where Dr. Kevin Trenberth is telling people that all that energy that should have hit the earth, but didn't actually warm anything, is in the very deepest oceans. Places where (conveniently) we don't have any historic records. The heat magically made it's way there without warming any of the water in between.

Realclimate is not the only source of authoritative climate science on the web. Read Dr. Curry, the Dr's Pielke for some balance. If you have the courage of you convictions, read some of Roy Spencer or Freeman Dyson. That would be a good start. You will see that there are many people with many doctorates in physics, atmospheric physics, statistics, engineering and other sciences who a pretty certain that there really isn't much to worry about here. And if you are going to say "we should act now, what harm could there be" ask the Australians who were flooded because the climate alarmists told the government not to draw down reservoirs that should have been empty when the rains came. Ask Heathrow airport who have finally decided to upgrade their snow removal fleet, after realizing that there was actually still going to be snow in England. In the next 5 years or so, ask the people in the Mediterranean when the rains return and they have set up systems to live with drought, but forgotten about shedding water. Of course, when those rains return and make a lie of the assertion that the droughts were a sign of global warming, the rains too will be claimed to be "consistent with global warming" or climate change or regional climate disruption, or whatever it is called this week.

Not to mention that Mullar was never even close to a skeptic and his co-author (Dr. J. Curry, a prominent climate researcher who would hardly be called a skeptic either) is disputing his comments about what the data shows. The great thing about the BEST project is all of the data and methods are available. Unlike Hadley CRU who have lost their original data, and still refuse to provide the various Ural data sets.Or GISS that won't provide the method(s??) used to 'normalize' their data. With the BEST project, we can see things like this comparison of what Mullar released to the press and what the data actually shows. Note that the two graphs have different time scales on the x axis, which is not quite cricket, but the point is valid.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

No, it is more likely that Mullar, who has always been on the mainstream side, knew his data set would show 10 years of no warming while CO2 increased. This would be fuel to the fire of climate skeptics, so he pre-empted with a press release stating that the data shows one thing when it actually shows the exact opposite.

Given the number of true believers here (people I equate with the deniers on the skeptic side), I am wondering how long this post, all of which is factual and can be confirmed with relative ease, will be modded "troll". Seems to happen to all posts that are in any way skeptical.

Also, ocean level increase seems to have reversed itself. If this too continues, will the alarmists finally admit that maybe things are not worse than we thought? Personally, I believe that it IS worse than we think. We are on the cusp of the next ice age and instead of figuring out how to live in a much cooler world we are maniacally doing everything in our power to make it cooler. Of course the people who are advocating this are the same people who tell us the solution to the debt crisis is to borrow more money.

I see you didn't quote the parent. You are talking about increased CO2 being a result of human activity. The original poster was talking about human activity impacting climate. I would be someone you would call a denier. Here are things I'm sure of. Please point out what I'm denying.
1.Global Warming is real.
2.Humans have impacted climate, particularly by gaseous pollutants. Methane will have an impact on climate, CFC’s really do chew up the ozone layer. SO2 has cooled the world. (and probably accounts for the cooling from 1945 to 1975 and may account for the flat lining over the last 10 years)
3.The “greenhouse effect” or the increase in atmospheric temperature due to absorption of electromagnetic radiation, is real.
4.CO2 is the second largest contributor to the greenhouse effect.
5. Though water is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect, the CO2 affect is cumulative to this, so it is important.

If you get your information from realclimate, or worse New Scientist, the fact that most deniers agree with all these points is probably news to you. But they do. So you can see why denier is not only a derogatory term, it is also wrong. Skeptics yes. Deniers? Not so much.

Sorry, Couldn't help but reply.

You really need to do some thinking of your own. Without questioning the conclusions of each of the articles in question, if these are the arguments being used to come to the conclusions, someone needs to go back to school. From the first article regarding the relative size of human impacts, this quote (and it is in context)

"It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions."

tells me that the author has never seen the Vostock ice core records of CO2 levels.

The article about doing something about climate change is the usual destroy the economy stuff. Given that the article does not differentiate between human caused climate change and natural climate change gives one pause.

The higher level of CO2 doesn't increase plant growth article has these insightful things to say in proving that CO2 doesn't boost plant growth. Again, these are in context. Read the articles if you don't think they are.

"Where water is a limiting factor, all plants could benefit."
and
"These experiments suggest that higher CO2 levels could boost the yields of non-C4 crops by around 13 per cent."

Just to be clear, there is a very strong case that human emissions are significant enough to matter. The article you quote is clueless as to what that case is. Those New Scientist articles are horrible. They are horrible because they are so easily rebutted. If I were a "denier", I would encourage everyone to read them. As Napolean said, never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

Actually, there are very strict rules that absolutely require them to publish every single bit of information. In Canada, it is called National Instrument 43-101. In the US, there are similar laws. Search for "Bre-X" for the why. Search the laws at the Securities and Exchange commission for US equivalents, that are as strict.