I've asked this question in many fora over the years without ever getting a reasonable answer.....what evidence or series of events would you require to see that would cause you to reject the CAGW theory? People used to say, back in the 90s, that they'd need to see a decade-long halt to the warming but that milestone came and went. I'd be interested in hearing from the warmists here what they'd need to see to shake their faith.

In anticipation of a reciprocal question, I'd became a card-carrying member of warmism, a spruiker of CO2 taxes if:
* we had rapid warming of approx 1c over the next decade or two
* we saw evidence that the postulated positive feedbacks are indeed positive and exist outside the models and that they overwhelm negative feedbacks
* we saw evidence that models are able to simulate cloud movement/formation and still predict a warming
* we saw evidence that models were able to replicate past climate changes

Dear cohenite,

I’m not a scientist and can’t support your depth of knowledge and incisiveness in matters scientific but I can admire it and enjoy the breath of fresh air you bring to the debate.

You have single handedly created a re-enactment Rowan Atkinson’s character “Black Adder”. Your warmertariat proponents on this blog are collectively the Black Adder character, as you lop off their limbs, their torso’s writhe forward for more as they mouth those infamous words, “It’s only a flesh wound”.

I think I’ll call this the “cohenite syndrome”. I’m so impressed that I might write something non-scientific to explain to the warmers what’s happening to them.

Awesome stamina, patience and science. Congratulations.

cohenite: Science does not "establish a citadel", it has established a 'noise filter'. I'd say it's working reasonably well in your case. The noise isn't always filtered out, but if it wasn't there then even TIMECUBE would probably be published. I know it hurts, but it's there for a reason.

The public have had things explained to them quite patiently by many scientists over many years. But some are like zombies, they just keep coming at you, no matter what you do to them. And there's always another one that gets infected and you have to start all over again.

I looked at you paper. Yeah, it is simplistic trash, especially your "projections", as there is clearly no insight into the underlying processes producing the data series. This was most clearly evident in Figure 1b, where the long term trend doesn't seem to be much different to the first trend before the 'break'. Looking at the graph, this 'break' is obviously caused by a only couple of years data and doesn't affect the longer term trend. The Chow test is clearly inappropriate for this type of data, as agronomist said.

I can see why it wasn't published.

spindoc: You may not be a scientist, but at least you should be able to get your pop culture references right. Yeah, I think 'cohenite syndrome' is highly appropriate.

spindoc,

Talking of Blackadder (as opposed to Monty Python's overconfident Black Knight) - would "cohenite syndrome" be likened to Balrick's world view?

Baldrick always had a "cunning plan" (although I'm not sure whether he ever employed a the Chow test).....

Or maybe he's Captain Rum, who didn't know the way to the Cape of Good Hope. What he usually did was sail round and round the Isle of Wight until everyone got dizzy, then headed for home.

...not unlike what "skeptics" do on blogs like this.

Ok, let's look at this.

Figure 3, the projection is based on a PDO based break occuring at that time due to the approximate 60 year PDO cycle combined with the assumption of underlying AGW.

You think that is "simplistic trash" do you Bugs? Which part, the 60 year PDO cycle where phase changes are shown to occur with a break pattern, or the AGW part? Do you deny the observed breaks in 1976 and the other at around 1998? If so how do you explain the extensive literature on the 1976 "climate shift" and the reversal sometime after 1998.

Stockwell's paper lists a comprehensive number of papers dealing with the "climate shift" of 1976 and possible causes such as the contemperaneous variations in ocean upwelling.

The reverse break in 1998 also has contemperaneous variations in ocean upwelling, or more precisely a resumption of the decline in upwelling which occurred in 1976. I might add that when the paper was written in 2009 the data stream post 1998 was only short so the Chow lacked the same vigour in isolating the 198 break as it did in confirming the 1976 break; but with the passing of another 3 years and the extra data showing declining GAT that 1998 break has been verified.

If you are going to criticise the paper's verification of the 1976 break you must also counter the extensive literature on that subject which supports Stockwell; so do it.

In regard to the 1998 break; I have had this discussion with the clueless Poirot; that is, all temperature indices, except GISS, show declining temperature since 1998, which confirms the Chow isolation of 1998 as the reverse break. Do you dispute that as well?

In regard to the projection, tell me one AGW prediction which has been verified.

Dear cohenite,

There are two issues here that beg debate. The first is Don Aitkin’s issue with the “Product Branding” of the non believers as deniers. The second issue is the “Market”.

Firstly, the branding issue is vital to the warmers because without the tag of “denier”, there is little left to defend the warmers, if they cannot produce the killer blow on “scientific fact” (sic), they must rely on vilification of the opposition.

This branding is tired, old, ineffective and gaining less and less traction. The market has spoken and only the remnants of a once fine ideology remain. Two issues telegraph the decline of this phenomenon, the market and distillation.

The market: Once upon a time the market comprised a well funded and very well respected core of advisers. Governments responded to the warnings of this body by invoking legislation that protected their voter base. There was a broad church in support of this market that comprised opportunist industries, vested academia, grant dependent scientists, NGO’s, a brand new investment market (green credits), a global agreement between industrialized nations (Kyoto), a broad range of “accredited” government funded media, a blog inspired ideological pseudo-science movement and a large support base of voters that demanded action against the perceived threats.

So what is left of this market and its “support base”.

Firstly, the well respected “advisory body” lost all credibility in 1999. Having established itself as the premier body for analyzing scientific contributions, the world was exposed to the sordid hypocrisy of politically motivated pseudo-science. The Governments that had responded to the threats of this advisory body lead them to question such legislative decisions, opportunist industries pressed for more public as the financial austerity hits the ideological reality, academia squealed, the funding for green initiatives has collapsed, after 18 years of trying, the industrialized nations have walked away from any further binding agreements to replace Kyoto and public opinion has abandoned the politicians.

There is absolutely NO recovery in prospect as the math defeats recovery. No amount of energy can possibly put back what has been lost.

Cont’d