Congrats on getting on the WUWT blogroll, and keep up the great work.

It would be interesting to note every single member of parliament that supported this stupid and senseless concept and voted it in, and that for every death from heat exposure caused by people not being able to afford to cool their homes in summer with air conditioning or dying from the cold because they can't afford to heat their homes all because of the increase in costs for heating and cooling due to price, that every single politician, AGW alarming and scientist that has supported the hoax be fully prosecuted and jailed for murder for every single person they murdered for the implementation of this rediculous money making scheme.

However, I consider it unfortunate that the message has not yet "got out" that any radiation from cold layers of the atmosphere cannot have any effect on a (significantly) warmer surface - neither converting to thermal energy nor slowing its loss of such energy. This means that an atmospheric greenhouse effect is not caused by the assumed backradiation, whether or not it actually exists.

The IPCC has never produced empirical evidence that there is any warming effect from any backradiation. It does not, for example, melt frost that can lie in shady spots without melting all day long. And yet it is supposed to be about a quarter as powerful as direct sunlight at noon.

Last year Claes Johnson (a Professor of Applied Mathematics with many published papers to his name) published a note entitled "Computational Blackbody Radiation" in which he proved computationally that there is insufficient energy (as determined by frequency) in radiation from a cooler body for that radiation to be converted to thermal energy. The frequency of radiation from the cold atmosphere falls below a cut-off frequency which is proportional to the absolute temperature of the receiving body, that is the surface. When this is the case it will not warm the surface and it exits the surface with the same frequency (hence energy) and intensity that it arrived with, rather like having been reflected, though the process is different.

This is the real reason why we see absolutely no warming by carbon dioxide. All warming can be fully explained by natural cycles.

Furthermore, when short-term cycles are "corrected for" the longer-term (~1,000 year) cycle may be seen to be increasing at about 0.05 degrees C per decade, but its rate of increase is reducing, indicating a maximum within 200 years which would be only about 1 degree C warmer than at present. After that the world can expect about 500 years of cooling.

And there is nothing that mankind can do about either the warming rate or the cooling rate of the future.

Yes, we know that. So convenient isn't it? The term "Climate Change" is far more suitable as it's consistent with every conceivable weather event.

"Records continue to be broken at an astonishing rate."

Indeed. And at a "head popping" rate too hmmmm?
May I suggest you check the records for Qld floods in the 1800's Your Honour? Perhaps then you could retire to consider your verdict.