Geoff - did you realise another la Nina is developing? The "warmest year" forecast was inspired by the el Nino effect as you point out, although there were problems with it. (In fact, the UK Met Office is notorious for bad seasonal forecasting). But as the Bureau of Meterology site says a la Nina is developing, so no "warmest year". Sorry.
You may also be interested to know that methane concentrations in the atmosphere have not increased for a decade - no-one knows why - and that the CO2 concentrations are well below mid-point of forecasts. (Note, not emissions, which may be ahead of projections for all anyone knows, but concentrations in the atmos which can be shown to be behind.) You may care to take another look at your article in the light of those issues

Geoff:

Thank you.

In your article you state, quote: "The trend of global warming is clear".

In view of your claim, please provide one specific piece of scientifically measured real-world evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest period of modest, cyclic global warming that ended around 1998.

Your evidence needs to prove correlation and causation.

Seeing your article and claims I feel disappointed because you fail to meet my need for authenticity and validity. My needs will be met by reading of scientific proof in your words to show you understand causation and can prove causation.

Posting articles without proof and understanding of causality you fail to meet my need for integrity and my need for respect for humanity.

Geoff, please get the facts.

Malcolm

:)

Geoff:

The UN IPCC's latest report (2007) relies on one single chapter (chapter 9) attributing global warming to human production of CO2. That chapter provides no scientific proof whatsoever yet falsely states human production of CO2 caused global warming. Check for yourself at the UN IPCC's own link to its chapter 9: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html

Look beyond the UN IPCC's unvalidated computer models. You'll see no scientific proof. None.

Strangely, in a remote UN IPCC chapter (chapter 2) you'll find table 2.11 showing even the UN IPCC admits low to very low levels of understanding for 80% of factors it claims are relevant in computer models. The UN IPCC fails to mention its computer models are not validated.

The UN IPCC fails to admit its computer models omit scientifically key known drivers of Earth's climate. The UN IPCC unscientifically downplays, glosses over or avoids key solar climate drivers and ocean-atmospheric oscillations such as El Nino.

The UN IPCC repeatedly misleads by implying - falsely - proof of measured causation when it really means unvalidated computer models. It has no scientifically measured real-world evidence/data that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest period of modest, cyclic warming. None.

Geoff, provide proof that you understand and know causation and I'll support you. Until then, please show some respect for me, humanity and yourself by withdrawing your unfounded and false claim.

Malcolm Roberts

:)

"Three separate enquiries in Britain have failed to find any substance in the allegations. The scientific integrity of the scientists and of their scientific results have been affirmed."

And how many panel members were AGW sceptics? How many sceptics were called to testify? Is it not true that Phil Jones was asked to select the evidence used in 'investigating' him? How many panel members had vested interests in AGW-related businesses and bodies receiving government grants? Did they not explicitly exclude 'the science' from the terms of the enquiries?

The only thing remotely surprising about the outcome of these 'enquiries' was the confidence that their puppet-masters felt in their ability to depict them as fair and legitimate.

Still, they fooled Geoff.

Squeers “It's not that the deniers "can't" understand, it's that they "won't". Pig ignorance!”

And the zealots are the worse!

But don’t let the lies of collectivists fool you....

The real agenda is to separate everyone form their individual discretion and freedom

As Lenin said

“Every revolution needs a revolutionary cause”

AGW is just today’s “cause-celebre”

Tomorrow, when enough of the collectivist the lies have been revealed, they will be off chasing a different windmill.

In the meant time real people will be expected to pay for the mess the environmental zealots created and still parent their own children.

Life is not fair but we could certainly do without the pointless misdirection of resources by those who seek to politically limit our individual and economic rights and rewards for effort.

Geoff Davis “Evidence firms: dangerous global warming continues, and we are the cause”

Wrong

but nothing new in that

Geoff:

If you're interested in climate facts you could start by reading a succinct document I wrote. it's being published on sites including these links to the three brief parts:
Part 1: http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Eco-Fraud_1.pdf
Part 2: http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Eco-Fraud_2.pdf
Part 3: http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Eco-Fraud_3.pdf

You'll find facts gleaned from my reading thousands of pages of scientific books, papers, journals and articles that in turn reference thousands more scientific publications. I've had the honour of personally listening to some of the world's climate experts.

The UN IPCC report's chapter 9 was written by just 53 people from a close knit cabal of climate modellers with vested interests. The majority came from just four (4) institutions - with the primary institution (CRU) being enmeshed in Climategate. Chapter 9 was endorsed by just five (5) reviewers and there's doubt they were even scientists.

And we were told by Kevin Rudd he relied on the claim being supported by 4,000 scientists. False. Completely false. The claim of 4,000 scientists was repeatedly and yet knowingly falsely implied by UN IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri. 4,000 scientists false. Reality, just five (5) with doubt they were scientists.

Want factual proof. Read these links providing paper by John McLean who simply presents data on UN IPCC reporting processes with the data obtained directly from the UN IPCC:
- http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
- http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_review_updated_analysis.pdf
- http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/23573.pdf
- http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/McLean_ipcc_review.pdf

If you're interested in facts, you may find this link of interest from a man who has studied the UN IPCC's own reports using data provided by the UN IPCC itself: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean_we_have_been_conned.pdf

With the facts you'll find life a lot easier and you'll be able to cease spreading unfounded fear and guilt. Instead we will be able to focus and dedicate our attention and energy to real and serious environmental and humanitarian challenges.

I invite you, Geoff, to treat humanity and our precious Earth with respect by addressing real issues to demonstrate care.

Malcolm Roberts

:)