csteele asks "what am I missing".

F&R find an unchanging climate sensitivity of between 1.4-1.8C for 2XCO2; CO2 has gone up from the base of 280ppm in 1890 to just under 395ppm:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

That's an increase of ~ 41%; according to the IPCC climate sensitivity is 3.2C for 2XCO2:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5.html

Temperature, GAT, during that period has gone up by 0.7C since 1890; according to the IPCC it should have gone up by 41% of 3.2C or ~ 1.31C.

Would you please explain the difference between what F&R found and what should have happened if the IPCC/AGW theory is correct?

bonmot; as usual, great contribution to the discussion.

Using your own asserted misconceptions and distorted science on an opinion site does not constitute a "discussion", Anthony.

Any serious dialogue I have attempted with you showing where and why you have got it wrong is met with ridicule and derision. I have seen you play with similar tactics on the other blog sites you frequent.

Somewhat amusing but nevertheless tedious because you (a part-time solicitor) want to show anyone who engages that you 'know' more about any of the climate sciences than any of the real climate scientists.

In fact, any "discussion" with a pretender like yourself on a public forum like this will not only confuse you, it will confuse the casual onlooker. This my precious petal might be the agenda of you or any merchants of doubt, however it is not mine.

Have games in your playground if you want Anthony, but having tantrums or displaying a bullying behaviour because someone doesn't want to play your game is immature and childish, IMHO.

bonmot the bureaucrat, the pretender, says:

"Using your own asserted misconceptions and distorted science on an opinion site does not constitute a "discussion", Anthony.'

In my last post I linked to NOAA and the IPCC; how is that my misconceived and "distorted science".

You're hopeless bonmot; even when I quote the top pro-AGW 'science' sources I'm still wrong.

And this:

"In fact, any "discussion" with a pretender like yourself on a public forum like this will not only confuse you, it will confuse the casual onlooker."

You arrogant twerp! Hey, any of you "casual onlookers" confused yet? I bet you are trying to marry bonmot's claims to be knowledgeable on the science with the drivel he actually writes!

Howdy, cohenite,

That's not very nice.

Me thinks you're right off beam on this one - and that bonmot is a scientist working at the coal face - and that he is often frustrated that a non-scientist like yourself has a penchant to graffiti threads with erroneous science.

But you get 10/10 for confidence.

@ Poirot & co,

<< bonmot is … working at the coal face >>

You mean like this?
http://tinyurl.com/99qt9k3

While he’d no doubt excel in shoveling the dirt,
the *rigour* required would be too much for him.

Care to show me where Bonny?