cohenite, I think you would have done better to have read the article and my response before commenting on what I wrote.

1. I used HADCRUT4 precisely because the cited piece in the article was from an analysis by Benny Peiser of HADCRUT4 http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45695 . And no the quote wasn’t from a UK Met Office press release.

I would have used HADCRUT 3v or better still GISS. All the data sets show a statistically significant warming since 1997. So score 1 for Agronomist and 0 for Ollier.

2. The satellites show warming over the past 30 years. Why at this stage doesn’t matter because Ollier stated “Satellite data show global temperature is essentially unchanged in 30 years.” Score 2 for Agronomist and 0 for Ollier. The fact that you think the warming in the satellite data is not caused by AGW, but by something else, doesn’t make Ollier’s statement any less wrong.

3. 1936 was the warmest year in the US and the Arctic. Well apart from being wrong (US date here http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html , 1998 and 2006 were warmer, Arctic data here http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/zonalT.pdf) it is irrelevant. Ollier’s claim was “Land based data are somewhat unreliable, but the hottest recent year was 1998. 1936 was the warmest year of the twentieth century.” Score 3 for Agronomist and 0 for Ollier.

4. Sea ice has retreated over the past 30 years. Why at this stage does not matter because Ollier stated “Sea ice shows no change in 30 years”. The fact that you think this has nothing to do with AGW does not make Ollier’s statement any less wrong. Score 4 for Agronomist and 0 for Ollier.

Csteele
I'm afraid I have to agree with curmudgeon regarding the attribution of creationism to the pro-AGW group. any creationism argument I do find intensely frustrating and simply do not understand it. would you have a link to the Julius Cesar podcast you refer to? I would be most interested.

ydgirp
could not agree more about the need to reduce/eliminate pollution. Just so long as you do not include co2 in your list of pollutants.

"All the data sets show a statistically significant warming since 1997. So score 1 for Agronomist and 0 for Ollier."

Wrong.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend

cornonacob
No go back and read the paper. Its difficult I know but you'll see that Hansen is defending the problems with the temperature record not following the script, although I admit he does not specificlaly say this. Note the talk about energy imbalance.. He blames the shortfall on aerosols, although on closer reading he also blames solar activity.. He leaves himself a way out, by saying we don't know enough about aerosols, so he doesn't give a forecast. However, he implies that the warming will overcome the aerosol cooling and then our "faustian bargain" (a phrase he uses a couple of times)with industrial growth will be revealed. You should make an effort to read the paper, and his earlier one where the bargain is made more explicit.

csteele
Nope. As I've pointed out a couple of times, the hard science part of global warming has never been in dispute. The direct action of CO2 in the atmosphere is well known and in an earlier exchange you even linked a paper which gave the temperature response. The argument, as least as far as the climate models are concerned, is about the feedback effect, concerning the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere that results from the warming. Ther is nothing solid and settled about that. Now this point has been made a couple of times and its not in dispute, but you aren't taking it in. Being unable to alter your arguements in response to what are undoubted facts, is the hallmark of a creationist mind-set.

"THE REALITY OF PHYSICS"

Perhaps csteele could enighten us further about "the reality of (climate change) physics"?

Are there, for example, any established and empirically verifiable LAWS - not hypotheses, projections, assertions, etc - relating global temperature to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide?

If not, how is it possible to predict future - global and/or regional - climate states?

Can he provide examples of empirical verification of such predictions?

Perhaps he would like to comment on this statement:

‘In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible “ (IPCC 3rd Assessment Report; Section 14.2.2.2, p. 774).

Alice

Dear Curmudgeon,

That is exactly why I have referred to you as 'Catholic' in your views. However there are others within your faith who are far more 'hardline creationist'. Cohenite basically rejects the notion of a green house effect and Leo Lane is our 'runner'.

I'm not saying that 'broad church' doesn't exist on the other side of the debate. Some of my greener friends can be embarrassing to say the least with almost as much divorcing from the science as from your side. It is like when evolution is misused to build paradigms within the social sciences. Ultimately however misuse is not equivalent to denial.

Your accepting that CO2 has an impact means you are not a climate 'creationist' but the denying a warmer global temperature causing more of the primary GHG water vapour in the atmosphere will not lead to higher temperatures still leaves you in the 'intelligent design' clique.

Dear cohenite,

The way you guys change your argument to suit the data is breath-taking in its audacity. For years your side banged on about how the climate record is too short to be making definitive assertions about trends, but now you seem to have little shame in picking out a decade and loudly proclaiming the planet has finished warming and it is all a hoax.

Good link by the way.

Lets plug in 1988 instead of 1997 for Hadcrut3.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1988/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend

Damn! Would you look at that! Look at that sucker go!

Dear prompete,

Here are the links to Mike Duncan's podcast series. Started in 2007/08 his weekly offerings have been a treasure. I have the complete series on my iphone and am 3/4rds the way through. A gentle and slightly larconic speaker Mike brings this remarkable chapter of the world's history to us in easily digestible chunks. What make it so compelling for me is that as a citizen of the current premier republic he is well aware of the similarities between the two as were the founders of the American republic.

My advice, take it from the beginning. Enjoy.

http://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/the-history-of-rome/id261654474

http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/