You keep doing it Peter, why?

>> pointing to government-funded computer models every single one of which has proved wrong, at the same time the globe has been cooling. <<

How can you "prove" the future wrong?

"Every single" model. Really? I'm interested - pick one, and link to it.

I know it might be hard for you to understand time series analysis, Peter - but repeating the cherry picked boundary condition cooling meme over and over again does not make it so.

I think we can all accept that the earth will cycle back to an ice-age at some point - I can;t see any evdience to suggest it will occur in time to stop the effects of the current warming though.

I don't know of any evidence that sunspot activity can be linked to the current climate trends. My understanding is that the current warming trend of at least the kast 100 years has been occurring independently of this eleven year cycle.

About the only sensible thing Mark writes in this article is 'Scientists have no real idea '. When your modeling is based on mythology you can draw any conclusion you like. More fairytales for adults.

Mark Lawson here
Phil Matimein - I don't say anything about the supposed affect industrial gases are having on climate. Although it is becoming increasingly apparent that the effect is smaller than the AGWers had hoped for. What I do say right at the end is that the supposed warming may well be entirely overshadowed by natural cooling - if the solar mag theory is right and if the sun continues more or less spotless. Note the ifs. Unlike the AGWers I'm not saying anything is settled.
For even if industrial gases are shown to have had an effect in one period, it most certainly does not follow that it will have an effect in another. Its a natural system. The only direct evidence we hav e for cause and effect is the solar mag stuff and that's not even in the much trumpeted models.

Mark/Curmudgeon

While this is one of your ‘better’ articles, it is still a non-sequitur – to sow the seeds of doubt (intentional or not, it doesn’t matter).

Satellite measurements since 1978 have been monitoring solar output. The radiative forcing amplitude is under 0.2 W/m2. After averaging over the solar cycle, it is even smaller.

This is an order of magnitude smaller in comparison to the radiative forcing arising from long-lived greenhouse gases.

You fail to understand that there is nothing in atmospheric physics to suggest that the sensitivity of climate to solar irradiance variation differs substantially from the sensitivity to infrared radiative forcing arising from greenhouse gas emissions.

A Watt is a Watt, regardless whether it comes from changes in the incoming solar energy, or GHG induced changes in the infrared radiation loss.

Therefore, if your opinion/article is to have any substance, you need to invoke something else about the way the Sun affects climate – and you try (anything to find another culprit).

Guess what, even the real experts are trying – and guess what again? Zilch, zippo, nada, yada yada.

_______

Onlookers

“Professor Curmudgeon” is doggedly trying to show a correlation between temperature and magnetic field variations over a period when temperature, greenhouse gas forcing, and some magnetic field index are all going up using (by inference) a statistical attribution technique which ignores greenhouse gases AND considers only the magnetic field index.

If we knew zilch about how CO2 affects climate, Mark's article would be interesting. However, we know a lot about GHG’s and their effect. No amount of fiddling by Mark (or any of the real climate sceptics, will make the physics disappear.

qanda

You've got the onus of proof back to front.

The entire warmist belief system depends on the proposition that the globe is warming. But it is common ground that since 1998 it hasn't been warming but has been cooling.

Do you agree with that?

That being so all the computer models relied on by the warmists to predict that the globe was going to warm in that period were wrong; and any consensus that it was going to warm in that period was also wrong.

The appeal to time series is an appeal to a temporal baseline that is not supplied by the positive science, that requires subjective interpretation, and is therefore arbitrary.

And even if it were true that the globe is warming, it still wouldn't follow that any governmental action is warranted.

Now:
a) please admit that climatology does not supply value judgments and therefore the argument that it justifies policy action is invalid, and
b) who is this "we" you keep talking about? You speak on behalf of everyone in the whole world do you? Including everyone who disagrees with you?
c) your snivelling personal arguments only demonstrate your intellectual impotence and irrelevance.