Lodown, you might fool others into thinking you understand what you're scientifically arguing by baffling them with BS, but it doesn't fool me, because unlike yourself who seems to cut & paste arguments from Googling (let me guess - WattsUpWithThat? Some other personal blog?), I do actually read science articles written in real science publications by real scientists, as well as several modern planetary physics textbooks.
For example, your earlier statement of
"CO2 absorbs longwave radiation only at specific wavelengths" is what I would call a "factoid". Yes, it's true, and no, it's not relevant to your argument. Saying that to anyone who knows anything about gas absorption spectra is like telling a LAME "hey mate, did you realise that if you tighten a nut too much, you can over-torque it?" and wondering why he looks at you like you've just called him a moron.
Regarding your sea level argument:
You really need to read the narrative before you post chart links. If you do that, you will get some perspective on why the chart has a negative blip at the end, but otherwise shows absolutely nothing but steadily rising sea levels.
Regarding your global surface temperatures: Arguing a trend using monthly temperatures is like arguing the Qantas share price is well and truly on the rebound because it was up one cent yesterday. There is nothing -
nothing - in long term data trends which supports your argument.
The climb in CO2 doesn’t explain any of the cooling periods that have occurred in between then and now either. (Perhaps there is something else at play, but the warmers gloss over these periods with no satisfactory explanation.)
It is called "natural variability" and is discussed at considerable length by climate scientists. It is a phenomenon that is common in noisy data, even when that data shows a clear and pronounced trend over time. Why these small variations occur (usually over a period of about a decade) is not fully understood, but that doesn't mean the broader picture is invalid. This is a classic "Argument from the Gaps", a bit like saying "ah well, the Earth has wobbles in its orbit that we can't explain, therefore orbital mechanics is under a cloud of uncertainty".
Then you rabbit on about cloud input and Roy Spencer's work as if it's some big secret that cloud input is not yet fully understood, and even worse, as if it is considered the solitary or even predominant climate feedback! Yet you fail to mention that Spencer's latest research paper he managed to get published in an obscure 4th tier journal was
so bad that the editor of the journal
subsequently resigned, embarrassed that the editorial and review process had allowed such rubbish into print. Spencer's modelling, in the words of another prominent scientist, "produced the desired results only if you input variables which bore no actual resemblance to reality". And yes, he used his own
modelling! Almost exclusively. So apparently that's a big no-no and modelling is flawed......unless a sceptical scientist uses it, in which case it's fine.
You talk of Spencer as if he is the only scientist in the world who uses satellite records, however it is true that Spencer is famous in the scientific community for gratuitously screwing up his satellite data analysis years ago by failing to account for orbital decay and then inadvertently changing a plus sign to a minus sign during data crunching, magically showing tropospheric cooling when it was actually slightly warming!
And I'm not even going to address the last 2/3 of your post which is just a political diatribe, other than to say I think it's clear why you're a "sceptic", and it obviously has lots more to do with politics than understanding science.