Loudmouth,

Regarding extreme events;

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120803_DiceQNA.pdf

(I see you're conforming to style - nothing changes)

Poirot, your unsourced article is by whom?

If Hansen then his conclusions about extreme weather is rebutted here:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/08/14/hansen-is-wrong/

If Mann then he is rebutted here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/16/quote-of-the-week-what-planet-does-michael-mann-live-on/

But regardless even a cursory look at your link reveals it to be nonsense; the statistical basis for its conclusions are flawed; it is flawed because its period of reference for comparing subsequent hot summers is the period of 1951-1980.

Poirot's article says this 1951-1980 was a period of a "stable global climate"; this is wrong. It was a period of particularly cold and wet La Nina domination which ended abruptly in the Great Climate Shift of 1976.

Because 1951-80 was predominantly cold and wet any summers in the following El Nino period from 1976 to ~ 1998 would appear hotter by comparison.

In addition running mean fallacy explains why all the periods in the modern era still show warmer summers despite the temperature not rising for 15 years.

Grow up Poirot or at least learn basic statistics. You are being conned by your AGW heroes.

Here's little more, cohenite.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120803_DicePopSci.pdf

I wonder how "grown up" it would be to give you and your rantings more kudos on climate science than this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen.

@ Poirot,

<<I wonder how "grown up" it would be to give you and your rantings more kudos on climate science than this guy? [ie James Hansen]>>

And the best (most telling) part of all that kudos heaped on Hansen was this little comment by Freeman Dyson:
“The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers... Hansen has turned his science into ideology.”

"Hansen has turned his science into ideology"!

Poirot

FYI

HANSEN

In 1988 Hansen testified on global warming before the US Congress. He predicted a run of unusually hot summers in Washington DC, Omaha, Memphis and New York.

Twenty-four years later, how has he done?

He under-estimated the number and intensity of heat waves in Washington and NY and overestimated for Memphis. Omaha had a run of unusually cool summers.

Overall his mark is 2.5 out of four. That puts him streets ahead of economic forecasters. It was also, in the context of what was known in 1988, amazingly prescient.

Source:

The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail-but Some Don't by Nate Silver

http://www.amazon.com/The-Signal-Noise-Predictions-Fail-but/dp/159420411X

Nate Silver also writes the 538 blog which accurately forecast the results of the recent US election weeks in advance.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Hansen's forecast of dangerous sea level rises is based on the possibility of a collapse of the Greenland ice sheet. I used to think this was unduly alarmist. However as you pointed out Greenland is rapidly losing ice:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110308.html

Perhaps he's right after all.

I was also sceptical of the "hockey stick" but other researchers seem to confirm it. I think a dispassionate observer would have to say it is PROBABLY APPROXIMATELY correct.

See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hit-them-with-the-hockey

The reality of AGW does not rest on the hockeystick so I don't think this argument amounts to much.

I think Mann should have dobbed in his friend, Phil Jones but we all make mistakes. In my personal life I've made worse.

DYSON

Dyson is a brilliant scientist. He is not a climatologist. He is entitled to his opinion but I wouldn't put much weight on it.

Most scientists of Dyson's calibre, including Richard Feynman's friend, Murray Gell-Mann, entertain few doubts as to the reality of AGW.

If the deciding factor for anyone is the opinion of distinguished scientists – eg fellows of the Royal Society - AGW wins by a landslide.

Quote: SPQR

>>Minute
To: All the AGW faithful

Neither Feynman nor Gell-Mann are/were “climate scientists”>>

See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14179&page=0

Neither is Dyson old son

There is no question that humanity is now a considerable and growing geological force, or that we're affecting climate and ecosystems generally. Nor is there any doubt the effects are "negative", since the vast majority of organisms are not adapted to adjust to the kind of abrupt change we're causing. The fossil record will no doubt one day reflect this decisive shift as on par with other sudden extinction events in Earth's history.
Global warming is only one aspect of the general degradation and imo shouldn't be the focus--as though otherwise the human footprint is benign! Or as if it's ok to vicariously decimate species-diversity, until it affects us! This is an ethical issue as well as about our own survival, indeed more so since we're uniquely adaptable to sudden change. Howevermuch humanity's affected, it'll relocate and survive better than the rest.
A focus on AGW allows minimifidianists to hector and waffle endlessly over the data, which is so complex as to accommodate their spitting scepticisms, and to seduce swathes of the gullible, or merely frightened, to their own cynical worldviews.
So-called denialism is a "popular" movement incited by a few loudmouths, whose arguments have been comprehensively discredited, and whose vested interests have been commonly exposed.
Yet of course the ultimate or accumulating effect on climate can only be predicted and revised as more evidence is gathered and analysed.
I for one don't need any more evidence to acknowledge that humanity is an increasingly destructive force. And no amount of belligerent hemming and hawing over the weather from ignoramuses, while the planet is laid waste, appraises me of anything but their viciousness.