Well, just paraphrasing the title of this piece of crap at the Telegraph. Christopher Booker writes:
But the highlight of our visit was dinner with Dr Fred Singer, a distinguished US scientist, formerly professor at two universities, and founder of the US satellite weather service. He has done more than anyone in the scientific counter-attack against the ruthless promotion of global warming orthodoxy by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Fred Singer has probably also collected more than others from the tobacco and oil industry. Which might be the reason why he makes shit up.
The pattern actually shown by balloon and satellite records is so dramatically different that, even on the IPCC’s own evidence, the report concludes, “anthropogenic greenhouse gases can contribute only in a minor way to the current warming, which is mainly of natural origin”.
I cannot find this quote in the IPCC report. It almost certainly is quoted out of context, or maybe fabricated. The temperatures in the different layers of the atmosphere are a very good confirmation of the greenhouse effect. If anyone knows where that quote comes from, let me know in the comments.
See also Tropical tropospheric trends on realclimate.
One of the central flaws in the IPCC’s case is its reliance on computer models, based only on those parts of the evidence which suit its chosen “narrative”, omitting or downplaying hugely important factors which might produce a very different picture. These range from the role played by water vapour, by far the most important of the greenhouse gases, to the influence of solar activity on cloud cover.
Water vapor is indeed a very important greenhouse gas, see here for more. It is included in the models, of course.
However, since there is no link between cosmic rays and climate, these are not included. Because that would be silly.
There is another good take on the article at The Myron Ebell Climate.