An excellent summary of the facts. If only we could get alarmists to read it!

I think the worm is turning but alas they are hell bent on killing us with carbon taxes.Can we have a referrendum on carbon taxes?

If you believe that a IT guy with no background in science over a bunch of trained scientist then that's you own problem. If you believe that the IT guy is going convince climate scientist that they got it all wrong. Then have I got a deal for you, would you be interested in buying shares in a little bridge over a harbour.

Kenny, You don't know how to read a graph? You always defer to authority?

John has indicated to me by separate email that the supposedly hottest temperatures in Arctic Canada are probably nothing more substantial than estimates, based on data from up to 1200km away. Surely there is better data than this for the Arctic?

Yes Jennifer (Marohasy), there is - satellites.

This statistician has even done a good job of removing some natural variability

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/all5raw.jpg

Full story here

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/how-fast-is-earth-warming/

Would like the Australian Climate Coalition's John McLean to comment.

Come on Kenny, the only thing climate scientists are expert at is writing grant applications. After all to get all that money pouring in they didn't have much time for anything else.

That's why they had to pick up all that propaganda from green groups, to write into the UN's IPCC last report. They didn't have any new BS of their own to feed in there.

If only it were that simple.

Atmospheric temperature is crucially important to our collective existence - true.

But there is also the matter of QUANTITY of heat energy and the extent to which it inhabits the oceans and solid matter at the surface of the planet.

When ice melts, an immense amount of heat energy is absorbed. Yet the temperature of the system does not rise. Where does the heat energy go? It goes into the liquifaction of the ice. It is embodied in the water itself, with no rise in the nett temperature (heat pressure).

It is a matter of some amazement to me that yer average Aussie bloke can use an Esky for his entire lifetime, without being aware of the operating principle of such a simple apparatus.

The ratio of ice to water is crucially important to life on Earth as we know it. It is the air-conditioning system which smooths out seasonal and solar temperature variation, as well as average planetary precipitation and much else besides. Too much ice puts the world on the slope to another ice-age. Too little puts the world on the slope towards a violent and energetic climate.

The great genius of life on Earth was that it had collectively evolved to keep the wobbly coin balanced on it's edge.

It didn't take much to upset it. The hairless apes may yet turn out to be a bad idea.

A cherry-picked analysis, for the following reasons.

Sceptics love the Hadley record, because it shows 1998 way above everything else. But Hadley ignores the Arctic and therefore under-estimates more recent warming. The poles are warming more than lower latitudes (as predicted), so the NASA and NOAA approach of at least including estimates the Arctic is more sensible.

El Nino (hot) and La Nina (cool) affect temperatures on a short timescale (1-2 years). 1998 was the strongest recorded El Nino, so its high temperature can be reasonably attributed to that, not to the longer-term trend. 2010 is right on the warming trend (and an equal highest ever) DESPITE the strong La Nina in the latter half of the year. And DESPITE the sun's irradiance currently being relatively low.

You can read a more balanced summary of the 2010 result here:
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/2010-equal-hottest-ever/
It shows the data from the four main institutions, rather than picking one that supports a point of view.

It also shows James Hansen's new plot of 12-month running means (rather than calendar year means). This shows more clearly the short-term correlations with El Nino/La Nina and with volcanic eruptions.

As to perceptions of a recent warming trend, most people do see a recent warming trend in the unadulterated, complete data, if they are presented in a neutral context, as documented nicely by Stephan Lewandowski:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/43020.html

Who is this John McLean?

Clearly all of the world's climate scientists and bodies such as CSIRO, BOM, WMO and NASA should be beating a path to his door...or perhaps he is cherry picking as is typical in this blog and/or perhaps he is "paid" to obfuscate.

And before Hasbeen chimes in it should be noted that said scientists et al get paid to study the science of climate change not the end result. Therefore if they disprove AGW they still get paid so the 'conspiracy for gain" theory doesn't wash.

Chris Shaw, Geoff Davies and Bon Mot.. go back and look at the first link Bon Mot so thoughtfully provides. This purports to show that temperatures have been rising since 1975, through careful drawing of the lines through the graphs. In fact there are two distinct stages in each graph. Ignore the lines and look at them closely. They all show that temperatures rose between the mid-70s and around the turn of the century.. since then, with big variations, temperatures have basically flatlined. Now go back and look at the material about third hottest or second hottest.. again that all confirms that nothing much has happened since the turn of the century.. if its the second hottest, how come its just the second hottest after a decade?

To over come this problem, activist scientists point to ice. The heat they origianlly forecast is somehow going into the ice. They then point to indications of this or that piece of ice melting. The problem with that ad hoc theory is that sea levels don't really seem to be doing anything. Look at the satellite data from the University of Colorado.. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/results.php look down under global mean sea level.. if anything the tiny annual increase in sea levels are moderating, not accelerating.

You'll have to look for some other explanation.

Because Mark old boy, if one is to comprehend the graph, one has to read the 2nd link as well.

Primary schoolers might just look at pretty pictures/graphs but at some point, one hopefully graduates to a higher level of cognizance :)

Leave it with you.

Chris Shaw - terribly sorry, your argument also referred to water. Yes, the sea surface temperatures around Australia are at a record high - so there you go, you have a semi-plausible out. The problem is that ocean heat content, as a concept, has been tossed around for some time with different bits of research saying different things. But in essence the deep surface bouys measuring temperatures have only been in operation for a decade or less, so drawing conclusions would seem to be premature.

In any case, as with most of these on-the-fly explanations, they would have been vastly more impressive if we heard about them before actual results proved the original projections wrong.

Bonmot - again, go back and look at your second link. Now try and work out how the author has adjusted the original graphs so that they show an upward trend even in the last 10 years. In fact, you can't. Its quite obscure. The original graphs were better and showed what everyone can agree on, that temperatures have just been bouncing along a plateau for a decade and more.

That's the problem with the greenhouse case, the graphs have to be "adjusted" to make them say what the theory requires.

As for your other comments, its always best to be professional, even in an adverse argument.

Kenny, care to tell us exactly what other climate scientists would dispute about this piece? It cites various data and does simply calculations, that's all.

So I work in IT. Big deal. I have the IT skills to examine data, not that there was much skill required in debunking any hysterics about 2010 being the hottest year.

Also, I believe Tamino's nonsense as far as I can throw him. Did you read his guff? "... while the thicker red line is the model based on El Nino, volcanic forcing, solar variation, a residual annual cycle, and a time trend." More computer games. No mention about whether a time-lagged ENSO signal was involved despite at least 5 papers (mine included) showing that there is a delay. Watts up with That has a piece that likewise looks at removing ENSO from temperature trends (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/23/will-global-warming-survive-a-strong-la-nina/) and it tells a different story. Is WUWT correct? I don't know because I haven't looked at it in detail. I mention it because Grant Foster's view (i.e Tamino's view) is not the only one and I wouldn't take it as gospel on any matter. I believe that he is or was a colleague of James Hansen, but I may be wrong.

Geoff Davies, I cited the Hadley Centre data because that's what the IPCC uses. Hadley does not ignore the polar regions, provided data across 1961-90 exists so that a "long-term average" can be calculated and the anomaly determined. Your comments about the La Nina show that you didn't bother to read what I wrote about the delayed temperature reaction being the reason that there's little influence in 2010 temperatures. If you are going to comment then it would be wise to read the article properly first.

John McL.

Curmudgeon: “That's the problem with the greenhouse case, the graphs have to be "adjusted" to make them say what the theory requires.”

Nonsense.

“Adjusting” data is not that unusual, Mark. Anti-AGW luminaries such as Roy Spencer does it, and Steve McIntyre did it, for good reason (adjusting for satellite drift and for the urban heat island effect in the US, respectively).

Should their adjustments be discounted? Of course not.

Just because you (and snowman) don’t or can’t follow Tamino's “guff”, does not mean it is not worthy. There is much research being conducted to differentiate climate change due to natural variability and GHG’s. Would you have it any other way? Of course not.

It would be helpful Mark, if in studying attribution, to filter out such components as to show the real trend due just to GHG’s. Do you not think?

If you (or snowman) were expert in time series statistics I might pay more attention to your (and his) comments, but you (and he) are clearly not.

Much has been said to involve more professional statisticians (not IT guys) in the next IPCC report. It is extremely disingenuous (and unprofessional, Mark) to debunk time series analysis by ‘eyeballing’ graphs, which you freely admit to doing.

If you want a “professional” dialogue Mark, please show some professionalism in your own comments.

For what it’s worth, I think there is much more to the ocean/atmosphere/land coupled system than meets the eye (pun intended).

.

Oh, and snowman ... yes, you may be wrong – as has been shown before.

One more thing snowman,

Do you really think Klaus Wolter has rocks in his head too, or NOAA?

You have a lag of 5 years in more ways than one snowman. Do you really not understand why Tamino uses a range in his analysis?

And please, don't answer with "the graphs have to be "adjusted" to make them say what the theory requires" tripe.

Dear John McLean.
This is just another prime example of inept analysis (for which you are so renown) . All this blather about next to nothing, so let's go to the data:

Hadcrut3 courtesy" wood for trees": http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend

Would you like to comment on the supposed lack of warming trend? Of course you cherry-pick warming rates on short term scales, but that type of analysis is merely pissant, as you know.

And are you also ignoring data from NASA and NOAA which not only confirm the Hadley data but also confirm the warming trend. And the fact that the 2000's were the warmest decade on any temperature record ("plateauing" at record levels no less, not "cooling" as you infer)

You also refer to some gobbledygook (a mutation of Don Easterbrook's infamous creative license in mapping the warmest temperatures pre 1855) from the ice-core data, completely ignoring current warming. Of course, that was another blatant misinterpretation of the data.

You simply rehash the same old dreary simplistic non-scientific sloganism, so common and expected from Heartland Institute acolytes.

As usual, Kenny has no relevant comment on the facts, but takes the opportunity to make a snide criticism of someone who has it right.

Remember that we are talking about global warming here, and not the unsubstantiated AGW. Even carbon dioxide cannot be shown to be the factor that warmeciles like Kenny wish it to be.

Human activity has no measurable effect on climate, and global warming is not AGW.

Bonmot, another backer of the AGW fraud wants us to confuse global warming with AGW. He has still not produced any scientific backing for the proposition that human emissions have any effect, but has at least shown us that all the suppliers of information on global temperature differ in their results.

Not surprising when one considers the ludicrous representation that the temperature of the globe can be measured, and it certainly does not inspire faith in grant driven scientists,

Bonmot knows quite well that in statistics there are always judgements to be made, which are meant to be made objectively, and where a person has a predisposition, it affects their judgement. Hansen, who is a high grade statistician, never leaves the data alone. He constantly revises it, and it always becomes warmer.

Geoff Davies is back again, an AGW backer who has been constantly requested to produce any proof he has that human emissions have any significance in global warming. He fails to do so, because there is no such science, otherwise the IPCC would not be resorting to the unscientific assertion that it is “very likely”.

Silly filly seems qualified to join the Climategate 'team". She doesn't seem to examine all of the data (i.e. read the whole piece) and despite several previous occasions when I showed her the data and facts she continues to ignore the bits she doesn't like and substitutes her own reality.

She asks about a "supposed lack of warming trend". I commented that the trend looked pretty flat over 12 years and then later I said, on the subject of a warming trend, "Jarraud talks of a long-term warming trend but when temperatures have risen then plateaued and are now higher than near the start of the data, of course there will be a warming trend." Didn't she read this far?

Silly filly regurgitates the same tedious claims every time and seems blinkered to what the data reveals.

Dear snowman, good name for someone trying to do a snow job. A pithy little reply with no attempt to discuss the scientific reality.

If you refer to the infamous Carter , McLean & Defreitas paper: it provided ample evidence that ENSO is only an indicator of short term temperature fluctuations and has no impact on longer scale trends (as measured and linked earlier). Do you concur?

Of course regarding the Arctic temps, here's a dose of data from UAH, at least from a respected sceptical scientist (as at DEC 2010):

Northern Polar Land & Ocean temperatures trends/decade;
Combined Land Ocean
0.47 0.44 0.52

Clearly "not warming" (as they cue the Kookaburras). And additionally, that anomaly is less than it would have been had UAH not remodelled the climate period for calculation of the anomaly. So another huge chuck of mis-statement bites the dust.

Sure, we could also discuss the "greenhouse effect", Milankovitch cycles, record C02 and other GHG levels, glacial melt, ocean heat content, ocean acidification, loss of arctic ice etc etc.
Please come back when you have something relevant or evidential to provide.

And to end with a quote from John McLean himself:
ABC
20 December 2010
The Cancun Christmas con
John McLean

"It’s widely recognised that the El Nino-Southern Oscillation has a big influence on weather in eastern Africa."

should we laugh or cry?

Quite so sillyfilly, who can forget the coverage of snowman's blindness:

http://hot-topic.co.nz/mother-natures-sons/

and

http://deepclimate.org/2009/07/30/is-enso-responsible-for-recent-global-warming-no/

No wonder snowman wants to skewer Tamino, look who co-authored this:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/2009JD012960.pdf

And to end with a quote from John McLean himself:

“When climate models failed to retrospectively produce the temperatures since 1950 the modelers added some estimated influences of carbon dioxide to make up the shortfall”

I'm crying and laughing at the same time ... reminds me of the type of comment I expect from another 'professional' climate analyst - whatever that is.

sillyfilly and bonmot; tamino is not a reference for anything; he has been caught out on many occasions; the idea that 2010 is the hottest ever and proves the trend of AGW is something that follows Mann's hockey-stick and his conclusion that the recent period is the warmest in the last 2000 years; this claim has been well and truly scuttled by McShane and Wyner's latest paper:

http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/aoas1001-014r2a0.pdf

Temperature has increased by about 0.7C since 1850 in a strongly correlative fashion with TSI; in fact the temperature increase over the recent period has a correlation with TSI of 90%; the correlation with CO2 is 42%, less than random.

Yes, Cohenite, bonmot is really scraping the bottom of the barrel, now.

He refers us to the puerile attempt, by the Climategate miscreants, to criticise the science by de Freitas et al, which merely confirmed settled science, in a way that stirred up the warmeciles, because the comment on it was that it left little room for the assertion of human contribution to global warming.

This, added to the fact that there is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on global warming really stirred them up, and the result was the rushing into print of the above reference of bonmot’s, which was easily shown to be nonsense, when de Freitas et al were able to get into print, which was not easy, with the AGW fraud backers impeding it.

So the other articles referred to by bonmot are garbage, because they are based on the miscreants' dismissed effort.

Geoff Davies crowed for a while on this purported dismissal of de Freitas, but he seems marginally more sensible than bonmot, because he shut up, once the rejoinder was published.

I can imagine bonmot laughing and crying with the effort of maintaining his factless approach to sustenance of his grip on unreality.

This is old, long discounted material bonmot is dredging up, here. He should update himself. There must be some current rubbish available for him to use to back AGW, but everyone is awake to realclimate, the site of the “hockey stick” perpetrator, and current Climategate miscreant, Michael Mann, so he need not try that.

Sillfilly has yet to post anything coherent or factual. She is a waste of space. Not even amusing.

You mean the one and only Cohenite from both Jennifer's and Joanne's 'denialablog' is chiming in too! Wow, the ears must be a-ringing and the call-to-arms be a-singing. Next we'll see the WUWT crowd, coming down the mountain?

Hey cohenite, I read the title of your link and just, umm, er ... turned off. I mean;

A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE TEMPERATURE
PROXIES: ARE RECONSTRUCTIONS OF SURFACE
TEMPERATURES OVER THE LAST 1000 YEARS RELIABLE?

Seems like you still got a hang-up over a numerous hockey sticks.

Will try and break this to you gently - THAT'S OFF TOPIC.

TSI important? Yup. But that ain't all sol.

Nick
Still floundering I see - will snowman throw you a lifesaver?

still roflmho

No answers at all, have you, bonmot, but you are not stuck for words, just using the wrong words if you do not wish to make a fool of yourself.

Not much option if you are a fraud backer is there bonmot?

Good news about Climategate. There is unrest about the failure to properly investigate this travesty of science.

“The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) remains deeply concerned about the failure by academic and parliamentary inquires to fully and independently investigate the 'Climategate' affair.

The latest follow-up report by the Science and Technology Committee on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) confirms that the Climategate inquiries had serious flaws, lacked balance and transparency and failed to achieve their objective to restore trust and confidence in British climate science.

The report by the Science and Technology Committee shows that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were deficient and biased.”

http://thegwpf.org/press-releases/2296-flawed-climategate-inquiries-failed-to-restore-confidence-in-uk-climate-science.html

Is that too off topic for you bonmot? You might want to tell us what Skeptical Science” or (un)realclimate, or one of the other fraud backers say about it.

Remember when there were enough people fooled to have polls which showed a majority favoured action on climate change? We do not have polls these days. Not since the one last year when the majority thought that climate change did not warrant action.

We just have talks by that wierdo Naomi Oreskes who talks about a "consensus" as if it ever existed, and as if it mattered if it did.

Leo Lane,
I think that when all the governments of the world plus the majority of scientists (and even the Pope) agree on something, it's about as close to a consensus as you will ever be able to get.

A handful of detractors, financially backed up by industy groups with significant vested interests may have an alternative view but not one with any real legitimacy until they can come up with a coherent and unified theory of their own.

It seems to me that they are divided between warming/no warming/cooling, AGW or not, plus all the iterations inbetween - any view but the official one will do.

Using terms like "fraud" without any foundation is demonstrating more of an alarmist stance than the vilified official view.

I think Oreskes made some good points, particularly in regard to the same strategies employed by the passive smoking, acid rain and ozone hole skeptics and has history to back her up.

All the governments of the world do not agree, Rache. The Czech Republic considers it a serious mistake. Its President, Vaclav Klaus, has written a book, "Blue Planet, Green Shackles".

Here is some of what he said after reading Robert Carter's book, "Climate, the Counter Consensus"

"Let me declare from the outset that I consider global warming dogma (and its widespread acceptance) to be one of the most costly and undemocratic mistakes in generations, and I try, therefore, to contribute to its demolition.

When I listen to the views and arguments of the global warming alarmists, they sound very similar to the arguments of the former politicians, journalists and public intellectuals in Communist Czechoslovakia.

Of course, the polemic about global warming has a very respectable scientific dimension. But in its substance and consequences, the debate is not part of the scientific discourse about factors influencing swings in global temperature. It is part of the public policy debate about man and society, about our political, economic and social systems, about our freedom or its possible loss. This difference should be made explicit."

I suppose you believe we should trust scientific bodies like the Met Office, which publicly predicted a mild winter in the UK last year, to back the usual cry of the alarmists of "hottest year yet", while secretly giving a prediction of a severe winter to the Cabinet.

Would that come within your definition of "fraud" rache, or is it just corruption. You should read Carter's book.

Apart from Oreskes’ ratbaggery there are 2 justifications for claiming a consensus. The Doran and Zimmerman [Doze] survey is of course a farrago, a dolt’s nose-pick and can be ridiculed on a number of counts including the sample size of 2 vagrants, 34 bureaucrats and various odds and sods. Another good account of Doze is here:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf

However, the Schneider effort has far greater pretension to academic quality and validity; Schneider’s effort is here [and what a fitting research epitaph it is];

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

Schneider states that their selection criteria for distinguishing between climate research winners and deniers/losers was 2-fold:

“We tallied the number of climate-relevant publications authored
or coauthored by each researcher (defined here as expertise) and
counted the number of citations for each of the researcher’s four
highest-cited papers (defined here as prominence) using Google
Scholar. We then imposed an a priori criterion that a researcher
must have authored a minimum of 20 climate publications to be
considered a climate researcher, thus reducing the database to 908
researchers.”

At the risk of being unscientific I would point out at this juncture that Miskolczi’s 3 papers from 2004, 2007 and 2010, which are groundbreaking and unrebutted to an almost Einsteinian extent have had no citations at all.

If one stops even for a brief moment and considers how group-think works one can readily see how the mutual reinforcement would enable pro-AGW ‘scientists’ to dominate such a survey given that they, as the e-mails eloquently demonstrated, effectively control the main climate publishing venues. When you throw in venal political support, vast financial rewards and Kafkaesque treatment of dissenters [again Miskolczi is a salutory example] then you can see that an effective scientific monotone, as found by Schneider, will result.

The unfortunate thing is that Schneider’s vomitous paper is being readily used by craven politicians like Combet to justify their government’s position on AGW; this is not a consensus but group-think and official censorship

Silly Filly (Tuesday, 25 January 2011 12:48:01 PM) says, quoting John McLean, "It’s widely recognised that the El Nino-Southern Oscillation has a big influence on weather in eastern Africa." Should we laugh or cry?

Silly Filly, the El Nino- Southern Oscillation (ENSO ), while derived in the Pacific Ocean, has a significant near-global impact on weather systems and consequently climate. It is a naturally occurring process that history (and some weather statistics, notably the East India Company weather records, and various ships' logs) shows has been ongoing for centuries.

The impact of ENSO (El Nino) events can be global and severe. For instance, the 1789–93 strong pre-industrial era ENSO resulted in the following: crop failures in France just prior to the Revolution (in combination with a weakened North Atlantic Oscillation); the failure of the southern Asia monsoons resulting in the deaths of over 600,000 people in the Madras area, India; extended droughts in southern Africa resulting in the Mahlatule famine; reduced river flows along the Nile caused by reduced precipitation in the Ethiopian highlands; droughts on a number of Atlantic Oceans islands including St Helena and Montserrat, and throughout the Caribbean and nearby Mexico; a severe drought in eastern Australia that caused colonial Governor, Arthur Phillip, to note that the Tank Stream, upon which the infant settlement of Sydney depended for its fresh water supply, had ceased to flow for three years.

Leo

The “Global Warming Policy Foundation” – a right-wing think-tank set up by the doyen right-winger Lord Lawson and registered as an educational charity?

And Benny Peiser who is editor of Energy & Environment, the journal of choice for ‘denialists’?

The same Benny Peiser who is revered as a “global warming expert” by the Heartland Institute?

And you expect people to take the “Global Warming Policy Foundation” seriously when they can’t even quote the Science and Technology Committee correctly?

<< The Czech Republic considers it a serious mistake. Its President, Vaclav Klaus, has written a book, "Blue Planet, Green Shackles". >>

Perhaps Herr President Klaus has a communication problem, his book has not made an impact on the Czech government:

http://www.iea.org/textbase/pm/?mode=cc&action=view&country=Czech%20Republic

Snowman

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/how-fast-is-earth-warming/#comment-47414

Still have no sensible comments, have you, bonmot?

Ignoring issues, and baselessly criticising people who tell the truth is about the best you can do. Your silence on the issues I covered, I suppose, means that you have satisfied yourself that you were talking nonsense

In case there is any doubt, the full account of the conduct of the Climategate miscreants in relation to the paper on which bonmot sought to rely, is here:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/McLeanetalSPPIpaper2Z-March24.pdf

The amusing part is the emails in which they disclose their actions, which were later leaked to the internet.

Vaclav Klaus has not done too badly, with only 11% of the Czechs believing in AGW. Better than the US, where 47% are believers, and our country where 43% believe.

His government is not free of EU and UN involvement, which causes the stupidity you point out, but he does his best, and he has approached many world leaders to back his stance, against the AGW assertion, so far without success, which says something about the corruption of politics. We have no world leader, apart from Vaclav Klaus, who wants to be honest.

Leo Lane

Unfortunately, clicking the embedded link at the very top of that document took me to the Science & Public Policy Institute.

As you know, I do not place much credence in the thoughts of this neo-conservative think-tank, given the raucous rhetoric of the coterie at the helm;

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/personnel.html

You know Leo, having had a good look at your comment history, here on Online Opinion and in a google search ("leo lane" + "climate") you keep singing the same old song.

No matter what others have shown or written, nothing will sway you from your mantra - it is always the same.

Fine, live whatever daily life you have in your bubble, in your blog posts.

Just don't expect me to take any of your assertions seriously - they're very tired and quite frankly, it's tiresome to respond to your monotonous monotone in so many different ways.

Thanks, bonmot, I believed I was consistent, and you have confirmed it. I just keep telling the truth about AGW, which, fortunately, more and more people now accept.

You are consistent in your own way bonmot. You avoid the issue, and come up with material that has long been refuted. You stick with the material which no longer has validity, in your attempt to prop up the tired, and soon to be dead, proposition of AGW.

As CO2 has increased, global warming has ceased, so you could at least acknowledge that the demonising of CO2 has no validity.

You could acknowledge that CO2 has only beneficial effects, and the alleged detriment was that it would bring about catastrophic global warming, based on projections by the IPCC.

The passing of time has proved that the IPCC projections have no validity.

When Ban Kimoon took a punt at the 2007 Bali hot air fest, and made predictions based on the 2003 projections of the IPCC, although they had already been demonstrated to be wrong, he really put his foot in it. The more time that goes by, the more wrong the IPCC are shown to be.

The total warming of the globe over the last 106 years is less than one degree, only 6 or 7 tenths of a degree. Catastrophic? Hardly. We are barely out of the Little Ice Age, so have to be grateful for that warming, small as it is. The benefits are so obvious.

Sorry if you do not want more of the same, bonmot, but it is important that no one be misled, and there is always that danger, when you contribute to the page.

Bonmot "nothing will sway you from your mantra".

Pot, kettle black.

It comes to this in the end:

1. The sky looks very, very big.

2. The atmosphere is actually very, very small.

3. Those who can't do the calcs hide behind pseudonyms and cast around for opinions that satisfy their prejudices.

your calcs are so complicated chris shaw .. but let me try

very very big sky less very very small atmosphere = big sky small atmosphere?

very very big x very very small = very very very very big sky small atmosphere?

nope, just more AGW believer gobbledegook and I do understand that is about as much grey matter that is applied by believers.

Thanks for sharing your complete understanding of climate science, I'm sure it gets you by when in the company of other believers.