In support of Monckton

"For half a century we have been measuring the temperature in the upper atmosphere - and it has been changing no faster than at the surface. The IPCC knows this, too. So it merely declares that its computer predictions are right and the real-world measurements are wrong. Next time you hear some scientifically-illiterate bureaucrat say, "The science is settled", remember this vital failure of real-world observations to confirm the IPCC's computer predictions. The IPCC's entire case is built on a guess that the absent hot-spot might exist." Link.

From Warwick Hughes' site;
26, June, 2005, This site exposes the errors an
d distortions in temperature records used by the IPCC as evidence of "global warming".
From Surface Stations;
12/12/07 Now with 37.7% of the network surveyed comprising 460 stations surveyed so far, that leaves 761 to go.
Slideshow (look at results near the end)

Robert H. Essenhigh
Does CO2 really drive global warming?
Even closer focus on water is given by solution of the Schuster–Schwarzschild equation applied to the U.S. Standard Atmosphere profiles for the variation of temperature, pressure, and air density with elevation. The results show that the average absorption coefficient obtained for the atmosphere closely corresponds to that for the 5.6–7.6-┬Ám water radiation band, when water is in the concentration range 60–80% RH—on target for atmospheric conditions. The absorption coefficient is 1–2 orders of magnitude higher than the coefficient values for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm. This would seem to eliminate CO2 and thus provide closure to that argument.

Ross McKitrick
On global warming.
and in newsprint; Hot cities, not CO2, cause urban thermometers to rise.

Agricultural Research Service

The Radiative Forcing Due To Clouds And Water Vapor

Results show that atmospheric water vapor acts as a major greenhouse gas trapping radiation emitted from the earth's surface and preventing more of it from escaping to space. A warmer earth will hold more water vapor in the atmosphere and this additional water vapor will, in turn, cause increased warming of the earth.

Peter Dietze
The usable fossil reserves of 1300 GtC burnt by 2090, merely cause 548 ppm

Book review; Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change
The greenhouse hypothesis has failed to even predict the past. Observed increases in atmospheric CO2 since 1957 should have caused significantly greater temperature increases than those observed. To explain this discrepancy, it is claimed that industrial aerosols provide sufficient cooling to limit the temperature increase resulting from man-made CO2 forcing. Since the Clean Air Acts of the past three decades severely limited emissions from industrial processes with no observed resumption of a warming trend along the lines predicted, one might conclude there is a problem with the hypothesis.

Prof. Bob Carter 2005. Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere. (PDF)

Table 1: Contributions to the absorption of the Earth’s radiance by the first 100 metres of the atmosphere.

The absorption values for the pre-industrial atmosphere add up to 86.9%, significantly [higher] than the combined value of 72.9%. This occurs because there is considerable overlap between the spectral bands of water vapour and those of the other GHGs. If the concentration of CO2 were to be doubled in the absence of the other GHGs the increase in absorption would be 1.5%.

the presence of the other GHGs the same doubling of concentration achieves an increase in absorption of only 0.5%, only one third of its effect if it were the only GHG present. Whether this overlap effect is properly built into models of the atmosphere gives rise to some scepticism.
Table 2: Contributions of GHGs to the GH effect.
It would be expected that more CO2 would have a greater effect on atmospheric warming at higher altitudes, but this seems not to be occurring in spite of the predictions of most GCMs.

I could go on, and on and on. But why? The IPCC is demonstrably wrong. The kyoto protocol is badly thought out, badly implemented and demonstrably wrong and harmful.