[Mr Ramsbotham]

"Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done ...."

Gravity is caused by alien life forms in other galaxies. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of gravity. This has not been done ....

[TigersEye]

To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming.

That sounds like a legal debate but it sure as heck isn't science. There is no need to prove any cause of warming, which is dubious now anyway, when you can simply show that the primary evidence for warming by a greenhouse effect doesn't exist. See post #35.

[Still Thinking]

"Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done ...."

That struck me as an extremely ignorant statement and biased as well. They haven't had to "prove" AGW works, but any alternatives must be proven to at least be plausible. Kinda like that slut Boxer who apparently gets to decide capriciously who is even allowed to play in the debate (giving Spencer a ration because he was called the "EIB chief meteorologist", as if that renders his testimony questionable, or even worthless).