Recent studies answer (or at least address) the second question. For example, this article says nothing about the first question above. More and more, climatologists and scientists are getting it, that the IPCC has a political agenda. The closest answer to the first question comes from research chemist William C. Gilbert, who, in 2010, published "The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere" in Energy & Environment. Gilbert says:
"I am ashamed of what climate science has become today." The science "community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what 'science' has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed."
Other comments by other scientists and climatologists quoted in this source provide some very interesting reading.
And this source documents what is currently happening. As Bob Tisdale's graph shows, Pacific Ocean sea surface temperatures have not risen (or have risen only slightly) since 1994. Is that recent enough for ya?
And here is yet another source that documents what is currently happening. As Tom Fuller says:
"Those who think that there isn't much of an additional effect have been chuckling very publicly because temperatures haven't risen very much (if at all) since the big El Nino year of 1998. But it is happening at an inconvenient time politically for those who are worried that sensitivity is high. They are trying to get the world to prepare for warming of 4.5C or higher, without much success." That is, without the help of the MSM.
Be sure to check out Figure 4 in the article, which clearly indicates that the global mean temperature has not risen at all between 1998 and 2012.
So, examining only the second question shows that global warming is both a hoax and is not happening (at least not as fast as alarmists say). But a completely different picture emerges if the first question enters the picture, if a political agenda is pursued.
But that's just my opinion.
Article comments
1 - Dr Dreadful
Warren, why you would think it astonishing or nefarious that the IPCC has a political agenda when its purpose is to advise governments on the science and implications of climate change?
You'll be telling me Obama wants to run the country next.
2 - DSL
Warren, what an amazing logician you are. Since the climate has changed in the past, and we weren't around, we cannot be responsible for the current change. Hrmmm . . . this has a lot of applications. Let's see, so if I was not around for all murders that occurred prior to today, I could murder today and not be responsible for it. Yes?
Warren, is there any difference between a shovel used to beat someone over the head and the same shovel used to dig a garden? Has the shovel changed its physical qualities when it's used for one purpose and then another?
Can CO2 be both a feedback and a forcing?
You want to be right more often? Read the actual science. Avoid the talking heads.
3 - Maurice
Warren I appreciate the thoughtfulness of this article. I am an electrical engineer and my best guess is you are an engineer or technical person also. Your writing reminds me of Michael Crichtons "State of Fear". So like an engineer to put in links for both sides of an argument.