I have two questions for the believers in the new religion of denial;

1. do you agree that the Arctic sea ice is at the lowest recorded level in the last 1400 years? http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/1800ttweie6p5jpg/original.jpg

2. If you agree with the above, what is your explanation for this, apart from sun spots and any other extra terrestrial phenomena?

In answer to Robert Le Page (further back):
You have responded to me but don’t seem to have read my questions - merely tried to guess what I’ll say next.

Question: Where does one find a graph of global mean temperature for the past 15 years? Simple enough - it can be year by year or month by month. Just to confirm that GW IS taking place as claimed.

As for the “A” part of AGW, there can be no evidence one way or the other, only correlations. To have any evidentiary significance at all it would have to be shown that temperature change followed CO2 concentration change, not the other way round. Without proof AGW is a political statement, not a scientific one.

Question: Re “precautionary principle” - what social measures (bottom line - not interim with more waiting for disclosure) are proposed on the assumption of AGW? (An addendum – who is supposed to be first cab off the rank for sacrifices? The military? The fuel for shifting goods to countries that can produce them at home? Joe public?).

Question: Re nuclear “solution”: Who pays for insurance premiums to cover Fukushimas? The nuclear energy industry? Subsidiary question: Why do home and contents insurers impose nuclear exclusions?

None of these questions should be difficult for those who call for “action on climate change”.

(Afraid I don’t know of any proof that CO2 isn’t causing observed climate variation. Neither, I fear, do I know of any proof that a teapot orbiting Mars isn’t the cause. Demanding evidence of a negative is fatuous).

Emperor Julian,

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

"...the finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000..The only year from the 20th century in the top 10 warmest years is 1998."

(Just to confirm that GW IS taking place as claimed)

Is it really so hard to digest?

(apologies to cohenite for linking to NASA - I know it sets his twitch off)

Robert Le Page's latest questions:

Q1: Arctic sea ice has not been recorded these last 1400 years.
Q2: Extraterrestrial factors CAN and DO govern climate. Google for example Henrik Svensmark (it's safe - he's in the club). Or just think about what warms the earth.

warmair: "The above claim in no way gels with the evidence, at this point you are entering the realm of irrational beliefs"

Irrational beliefs? Are you serious? Its verifiable fact. Its based on the data set from Hadcrut 4 but you could use the data from any of the five major temperature sets. Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't make it so. Check it out. But you might have to avoid the usual alarmist websites who are trying hard to suppress the fact.

Poirot: you asserted that we were cherry-picking by using the very warm year of 1998 as our starting point. I pointed out that we were using the not very warm year of 1997 as our starting point. You now say that it makes no difference. Clearly logic isn't one of your strong suits.

Robert LePage: since recording of sea ice levels only started in 1979 I can't agree that it lowest recorded in 1400yrs. I will agree that its the lowest recorded since 1979. But there is plenty of historical evidence that ice levels were similar to now in the recent pre-1979 past. the reasons are varied but a recent paper says the recent decline was caused by a particularly strong storm/wind pattern.

Do you agree that the recent sea ice levels in Antarctica are the highest recorded since 1979?

Just a note on the obvious obsession some here have with Artic sea ice.When the temperatures were increasing in late 1990s the warmists only wanted to take about air temps. Then the temps started to misbehave and not do asthe consensus decreed. So then all the warmists wanted to talk about was sea temps. but then Argo showed that sea temps weren't increasing either. Next it was polar bears. Oh no, bear numbers are increasing. So now the poor old warmists are reduced to talking about sea ice levels in one place while ignoring them elsewhere. Rather pathetic really and a demonstration of the depths the myth has plumbed.
By the way, so what if all the sea ice in the Arctic melts?

Poirot, please, you embarrass yourself; everyone [except you] knows the world has warmed since 1850, the end of the LIA. As for your claim that:

"the finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000..The only year from the 20th century in the top 10 warmest years is 1998."

Please read McShane and Wyner in the link I provide above; and define the "modern meteorological record".

LePage thinks he is on a winner with the Arctic; the paper he takes the graph from is:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html?mid=5374

There is no doubt there has been a decline in the Arctic [summer] ice since the satellites in 1979. There is however, considerable doubt that the current summer ice melt exceeds what occurred in the 1930's let alone the past 1450 years:

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/52305165?searchTerm=iceland%20%20warming&searchLimits=exactPhrase|||anyWords|||notWords|||l-textSearchScope=*ignore*%7C*ignore*|||fromdd|||frommm|||fromyyyy=1921|||todd|||tomm|||toyyyy=1940|||l-word=*ignore*%7C*ignore*|||sortby

There is also no doubt that the Antarctic sheet and sea ice levels are at record highs. That fact is consistent with previous Arctic low ice levels and similtaneous high Antarctic levels in the short term:

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/screenhunter_214-sep-15-06-40.jpg

And the reverse correlation between the Arctic and Antarctic occurs over millenia:

http://www.princeton.edu/~cmngroup/13_Science_Editors_Choice.pdf

Even NASA has noticed this 'bi-polar behaviour between the poles:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/24/nasa-on-earths-bipolar-sea-ice-behavior/

The authors of the article LePage links to do not consider this well established climatic phenomenon and therefore their conclusion about AGW being responsible is irresponsible.