Dear cohenite,

Okay I think I'm starting to get it.

Because you feel 'Foster and Rahmstorf both contradict and refute the IPCC and Hansen 1981' you are making the case that they should all be tossed out.

If that is the case then might I politely advise that using the word refute could be deemed inappropriate here. Usually something is only refuted by something else if that something else has greater weight or proof. However in this case you see them all as equally bereft of scientific worth. Contradict is definitely the word for this occasion.

It is just from here Foster and Rahmstorf appear to have used real world data in validating a 30 year old paper that on the face of it did a rather good job of describing the physics of global warming, delivering projections that have been well supported by the very data Foster and Rahmstorf have worked with, and which still substantially holds up today.

I might have you wrong but it appears you want me to dismiss all this science and data because a study done this year doesn't quite match up with the projections of a paper done over 3 decades ago?

Can you see why this might be construed as a rather large ask?

Anyhow to get it straight, you believe in the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is a warming gas therefore you believe in the science of global warming, it is just that climate scientists like Hansen are overestimating by a huge margin the warming effect and because of that exaggeration, plus the fact they can not seem to get their story straight, you feel they should all be given the flick..

Does this about sum it up?

Part 2. Csteele; you say:

“Because you feel 'Foster and Rahmstorf both contradict and refute the IPCC and Hansen 1981' you are making the case that they should all be tossed out.”

F&R not only contradict Hansen and the IPCC, they also contradict themselves: consider what statistician and blogger, Ferd Berple shows following on from and using the equation from my first post on F&R;

GISS = -91.43 + 1.024Trend + 0.0761MEI(4m lag) + 0.06694TSI.PMOD(1m lag)- 2.334AOD (7m lag)

1) GISS = 1.024Trend + bx + c

(2) GISS = 1.0Trend + 0.024Trend + bx + c

(3) GISS = (GISS + d) + 0.024Trend + bx + c

(because y = mx + d, where m=slope=trend, d=y intercept)

(4) 0 = 0.024Trend + bx + e

(5) Trend = -(bx + e)/0.024

F&R have not solved for GISS. By including Trend(GISS) as an independent variable they have ELIMINATED GISS. What they have shown is that the Trend in GISS can be fully explained as a linear result of MEI, TSI, and AOD, without any reference to CO2.

In other words, F&R have proven that Climate Change is fully explained by the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), the Total Solar Irradiance (PMOD), and the Volcanic Aerosol Optical Depth data (AOD).

F&R have proven that CO2 has no role in recent climate change!

This is the sort of thing which laymen like myself have to deal with continually from the climate science 'experts'; I can do the math and most of the statistics; this is not rocket science; it is nonsense and it is the basis of all the policies which this witless government is introducing.

I also think it is fraudulent; and I wonder how you can defend it.

Dear cohenite,

Just a suggestion if I may, in order for myself and others to ascertain and properly reply to your arguments then a clear delineation of what you have pasted from other sources is always helpful. I find when including large sections from another the most appropriate way is to start with the word “Quote” and finish with “End quote”. That way there will be no confusion over what is the opinion of the other author and what is yours.

Also if you are going to add your own emphasis such as the word “ELIMINATED” then naturally the words 'emphasis added' would also be appropriate.

I have said before you are obviously passionate about this topic and often in the rush to post, these little things get overlooked.

Now that the minor housekeeping is out of the way I'm wondering if you are able to let me know if I have the following correct; “you believe in the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is a warming gas therefore you believe in the science of global warming, it is just that climate scientists like Hansen are overestimating by a huge margin the warming effect and because of that exaggeration, plus the fact they can not seem to get their story straight, you feel they should all be given the flick.”

That way we will both have a firm idea of where the other is coming from.

Are you saying I can't do the regression on Table 1 from R&S csteele? Why don't you do one and show where the results I posted are wrong.

This is an attempt to verbal:

"you believe in the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is a warming gas therefore you believe in the science of global warming,"

It can be broken down into:

1"you believe in the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is a warming gas"

Yes, but Greenhouse is a BAD term.

2 "therefore you believe in the science of global warming,"

That doesn't follow at all.

Who is Ferd Berple?

Is he a peer reviewed statistician?

I googled and mostly came up with links to wattsupwiththat....

Poirot; he's a blogger, statistician and nice guy; I think it's amazing that I have put up stuff which I have either got from other people, checked myself and/or done my own research/calculations and all you are concerned with is the status of the people you are talking to.

This sums up the AGW scam entirely; it's about snobbery, class and distinction with no substance at all. I mean Ferd has shown that F&R have shot themselves in the foot and disproved AGW but that is ignored.

How banal is that?