This is just a list of where the science now contradicts climate alarmism. I’m sure there’s more, but I just thought it would be interesting to see what I could remember. But first let’s outline the real scientific (not hearsay) evidence for manmade global warming
General evidence of CO2 warming

1. Even though we know the temperature record has been tampered with there was an apparent temperature increase large enough to turn a predominate cooling scare into a warming scare. So, whilst we can’t ignore instrumentational errors and outright fraud, underneath was an apparent trend large enough to persuade those who then believed in global cooling.
2. CO2 levels have risen. There’s debate about how much of this rise is due to mankind, but the fact it has risen is not in dispute.
3. There is a scientific basis for the CO2 blanket. This is only large enough for a fraction of the predicted warming, but the fundamental, but small direct increase due to CO2 is based on reasonably sound science (although the scale may have to change in light of the German research)
4. There are indicators that the temperature may have changed. E.g. a small change in Arctic ice (3%?) and Himalaya glaciers (not checked!!!) But these indicators are all dubious. E.g. in the case of Arctic ice there is a comparable but anecdotal changes in the early 20th century but the change appears to be real even if it isn’t unique.
5. I’m going to add in sea level rise – even though the evidence points to a deacceleration of sea level rather than the necessary acceleration, the fact is that the absolute rise is evidence of warming and is often quoted (and I’m struggling to find anything else to put in)

Evidence supporting the massive positive feedbacks necessary for doomsday warming.

1. ???

Other stuff that they say is evidence.

1. Models predict … not science just equations and a computer. Global warming could be responsible …. not science just speculation. Lesser spotted goat toad numbers dropping:  global warming thought to be responsible  …. not science. Assigning a cause which is not testable. To make it science, you need to check e.g. if changes in numbers correlate with climate variability … and even then it could only support the assertion that: “it got warmer”, which is not really in dispute whereas the real question is how much was due to CO2 on which topic the numbers of lesser spotted goat toads** have nothing to offer.

And that about sums it up: I can’t think of a single bit of research that actually links the apparent warming to CO2.
And now for the scientific evidence against:-
General evidence against warming

1. Global temperatures are not rising. There is no significant warming in the last ten years. This is entirely at odds with the IPCC report in 2001 which only spoke about warming.
2. Coldest June/July in Ireland (and cold here). Coldest winter in a similar period last winter, and cold the winter before and a lack of BBQ summer – individually they can be dismissed, but collectively it’s difficult to square this with “the hottest decade ever”.

Evidence contrary to massive feedbacks in climate models.

1. Natural climate variability is around 0.1C/decade with a profile near to 1/f noise. At this level, something like 10-20% of randomly produced signals from 1/f noise would appear with the same basic trends as the current temperature record. Given that half the trends would be the other way (cooling), it is very difficult to say anything other than: “the global temperature is not incompatible with natural climate variability”. It is not necessary to explain the temperature signal with weird unproven positive feedbacks.
2. Most Met Office global temperature forecasts were high (until embarrassment stopped them doing them). In essence this is the flip side of one because they kept forecasting warming for an entire decade when it didn’t warm and only about one year did they even the sign right as most years it was well the lowest expected temperature. The point is this shows that climate forecasts don’t work. I.e. the models don’t work. I think I worked out the odds of that happening by chance as 1 in 512 if the models were wright. But as you might expect, all the predictions have mysteriously disappeared so I can’t recheck that statistic.
3. This is just a list … and there’s that cold zone above equator which all the models say should be hot. It seems to be a concrete prediction which is contradicted by the evidence.
4. CERN physicists conducted a cosmic ray climate experiment that appears to make credible the link between solar activity (sunspots) and global temperature.
5. A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found evidence that coal burning plants may actually be cooling the planet. This claim that recent pollution was the cause of colder temperatures, is very much at odds with the claim that the reduction in pollution after the introduction of clean air acts in the 1970s on a global scale had nothing to do with the coincidental apparent rise in temperatures. It may be possible to argue that different types of pollution act in different ways, but as most of it is coal burning I’m entirely sceptical of the selective interpretations of the effects which just happen to match the required groupthink.
6. I’m going to add the paper that suggested the radiative forcing was too high (2x), even though I never saw the English version. This paper wasn’t strong on the climate modelling, but it was strong on the spectral data and it clearly suggested a dramatically lower rate of heat capture than previous models based on earlier spectral data.
7. CO2 the cooling gas. The simple fact is that CO2 is a cooling gas. It tends to cool the atmosphere where the CO2 is warmer than the surrounding environment … which high in the atmosphere is the cold of space.
8. Something like 50% of surface heat bypasses the bulk of  possible CO2 blanketing by being taken straight to the edge of the stratosphere by convection (it’s in the climate data!) …. which means that the cooling effect of CO2 is not just an “interesting” aside but it does have a significant effect on the rate of cooling of the atmosphere.

Evidence that warmists aren’t exactly scientific (not inclusive)

1. unRealclimate.com – real scientists are impartial. They do not run propagandists sites that refuse to print any articles or comments contrary to their religion.
2. Buddy review. The climategate emails revealed a corrupt system whereby peer review was used to prevent contrary work getting published.
3. Manipulation of conference delegates. The climategate emails revealed that “sceptic” scientists were prevented from attending conferences. This is akin to overt racism or religious bigotry. The quality of work wasn’t the issue, just the delegates view on manmade global warming.
4. Preventing publication by sceptics. Again the climategate emails showed that sceptics were actively prevented from being published.
5. Wikipedia. Real scientists do not spend their time editing trash like the wikipedia  content on the climate and certainly do not spend their time attempting to remove all evidence against their religion. E.g. try looking for  anything mentioning that the climate is not currently warming. That is a straight forward fact, it’s not deniable, it is open to interpretation, but the fact it is not currently warming is a fact which is very pertinent to an understanding of the current position on global warming and the failure to mention this simply undermines all credibility of Wikipedia on this subject.
6. The gulf stream “turning off” hoax. There is a small Arctic current which could turn off, but the suggestion the main current in the Atlantic which most people know as the “Gulf stream” could turn off is laughable because it is in fact a current driven by trade winds and as likely to turn off as … I was going to say Niagara falls but isn’t that turned off at night for hydro? (I thought it was funny!)
7. There’s that lovely paper that said something like: “surprising all the three main indicators of trends in extreme weather show no increase”, which in one simple sentence trashed all the claims of increase in climate extremes. To be fair I’ve since learnt that there is a discernible increase in hurricanes – which may be due to long term ocean cycles. So, except for hurricanes, all claims of increasing extremes are either cherry picking or simply groundless.
8. A biologist who claimed that polar bears were drowning because of melting ice has been suspended and is being investigated for scientific misconduct. Get ready for Polarbeargate (although in Wikipedia it will be reported as: illegal information release concerning esteemed polar scientist)
9. Climategate – hiding the decline.
10. Refusals to publish data even though compelled by FOI law.
11. The bogus inquiries which cherry picked the papers to examine to ensure they found no evidence that the authors cherry picked the data.

N.B. I’m not even going to mention all the “global warming could … ” be leading to the loss of this or that species or the even less scientific: “models predict” … which is just another way of saying: “my opinion is that ….”
(I reserve the right to make changes if or when I get good suggestions to add.)
**lesser spotted goat toads … a name I made up to represent all the odd species where a change in population levels get linked to global temperatures.

Moved to permanent spot on menu!!

(Link to page on top menu)
I feel I’m going to want to come back to this list as new evidence comes to light, so rather than seeing it dissappear into the compost heap of old posts I’ve put it at the top.
PLEASE ADD COMMENTS TO THAT ARTICLE!