Poirot, I too amazed by you; which 'home truths' are you talking about?

You link, again [!] to Sks without a clue what you are connecting to, in this case the critique of the McLean paper about natural variability, ENSO, and its trend creation potential.

McLean has been vindicated:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00148.1?journalCode=clim

Whereas Foster [ie Tamino] has been proven wrong; Foster, as well as criticising McLean et al directly, attempted to prove AGW caused trend by doing the opposite of what McLean had done; that is, detrend variability, whereas McLean had detrended AGW: see:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

Foster and his mate, Rahmstorf [F&R] attempt to isolate the AGW temperature signature by removing the natural factors; so they remove MEI [ENSO], volcanoes [AOD] and the sun [PMOD]. According to their 2nd equation;

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).

In other words, F&R have proven that CO2 has no role in climate change.

Do you understand that Poirot; until you do you will not appreciate that your heros, the climate scientists, have feet of clay

Hi voxUnius, I looked at the heating potential of the molten core sometime ago and came across work by Craig O'Neill from MacQuarie Uni. O'Neill, while a warmer, has looked at how plate tectonics recycles the oceans and in this fashion continually removes molecules like CO2. This explains why over geologic time, when CO2 levels were much higher than today, the oceans have never been acidic in the way AGW predict.

This tectonic process also removes heat as well; this combined with the fact that over 90% of the variable heat content of the ocean resides in the top 700 meters [see Knox and Douglass 2010] has led me to conclude that geothermal process does not contribute greatly to atmospheric temperature.

O'Neill's work also gives support to the idea of abiotic oil with hydrocarbons being continually raised by the tectonic process.

I might add, though, that O'Neill's work does not consider non-subaerial volcanoes and their potential effects on both CO2 and heat levels.

Spindoc, yes I know it was originally 'orgy', but I thought in your case, it should be a banquet, as nothing is actually happening, and I thought you would react as predictably as you did. Well done.

You still can't see what is going on is the mirror image of you little narrative? Oh well.

Cohenite, I think I am beginning to see. Your failed manuscript is probably far more valuable to you unpublished as 'evidence' that a conspiracy exists. It contradicts AGW, that's why it's not published!

Cohenite formula:
1)Tell opponent they are wrong
2)Insert BS explanation that is either irrelevant or almost unintelligible (that way it makes it very difficult to argue back intelligibly), but sounds sciency, so that observers might actually believe know what you are saying.
3)Wait for applause from the cheersquad: "I don't know anything, but I reckon he knows more that all the astrophysicists and geologists put together!" yeehah.

BTW, just for the record, R2 is not a measure of significance, it's a measure of how well a regression fits a given set of data. In just about any time series, any shorter subset of data is far more likely to give you a greater R2 that a longer complete series. This is a statistical truism. It means nothing.

Perhaps you can post the journal editors decision letter, with the reviewers comments? That we can discuss, as I am sure their comments are better than mine.

Mr Cox, what you said in response. You've convinced me: you haven't a clue.

A day or so ago, I asked Piorot et al if they could give us some idea what data, discovery or set of circumstances would cause them to disavow or doubt the AGW theory.

I didn't expect any response and indeed didn't get one from any of the true believers. The reason for that are, to my mind, clear. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that they can conceive of that would cause them to rethink their devotion to the theory.

That's not science, its religion

Amazing, mhaze!

You seem to regard the fact that no-one has replied as some sort of trump card....I wonder why?

By your non-critique of cohenite's work, I take it you're satisfied that he knows exactly what he's on about - no worries there.

From the reaction of the couple of scientists (ie, people who are trained in science - as opposed to law) who have visited this thread, it seems that cohenite's science more resembles "Clayton's science" - that is "the science you have when you don't have science".

And what difference would it make if they set it all out on OLO's pages? The "skeptics" wouldn't understand it any more than than they understand cohenite's faux version - and they wouldn't be motivated to investigate anything "that would cause them to rethink their devotion to the theory" that AGW is a fraud. They would side with cohenite as a matter of course, all the while calling the scientists "believers."