Oh look, a not flat line. Neither graph you present looks even vaguely like Watts' yellow one does it Janama?

Oh and cohenite, I don't have to assume some sort of superiority, I know I'm better than you at science. For example, I have published infinitely more scientific papers than you. I know that sounds like an arrogant boast, but really it is very easy to achieve.

However I don't have an axe to grind with the climatologists, I just think they are better at climate science than you too.

Talking of "skeptics" having fun with producing graphs.

Here's an interesting commentary on that lark.

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/cooling-the-planet-with-fake-trend-lines-deniers-making-up-cooling-trends-with-cherry-picked-data-all-the-rage/

"....What matters is producing graphs that look "sciencey"".

(although I note that Watts' yellow line dipped out in that respect:)

Dear kenskingdom,

If you scroll up from this post to the top of the page you will see, just under the name Anthony Cox, the words “How can there be a continent wide summer record when no part of the continent had a record?”.

This is the line he is pushing. He is endevouring to cast doubt on the BOM assertion that this is our hottest ever summer nationwide. His title reinforces this tactic with the words “Are the Climate Commission's claims of a hot summer correct?” This is his agenda and an ambiguous line buried deep into his article does not change that one iota.

Anthony, not you, needs to tell us that he understands 'how there can be a continent wide summer record when no part of the continent had a record' which would then beg the question why he posed it in the first place?

The warmists have been completely and totally thrashed on this topic over and over again in this forum because of their failure to answer these three questions.

1. Climate science
Science means what the DATA say, not by what the AUTHORITIES say. This destroys your entire case, because you have nothing else. Poirot and Bugsy and others are openly affirming the proposition that their methodology is appeal to authority: the religious methodology of knowledge.

When challenged to actually prove by data, we get links to articles in the mass media that make all the same assumptions the warmists do: an endless chain of the fallacy of equivocation.

And this is quite apart from any question of dodgy assumptions in the science; manipulation, suppression and falsification of data, systemic bias, and outright fraud.

2. Adverse effect
Even if all the warmists' contentions as to climate science were granted, all you would have established is a tendency for temperatures to rise.

So what? You can't just ASSUME that because an effect is man-made, therefore it's negative. You need to prove it. Hype about hurricanes won't cut it.

To establish ecological catastrophe, for example, you need to show the effect on the distribution and abundance of species in the original versus the counter-factual scenario, as well as the human evaluations of both.

Yet all we get are more appeals to authority.

3. Whether policy an improvement
Then you need to show that policy is capable of producing an improvement when the downsides of policy also are taken into account. The basic knowledge set required is seven billion subjective human evaluations of the current scenario indefinitely into the future, versus the counter-factual scenario indefinitely into the future, compared in units of a lowest common demoninator.

Go ahead. You guys are talking total bullsh!t.

JKJ,

You call that an argument?

You roll out the same rhetoric for every subject. I expect you have a nice little template beside you that lends itself to whatever is going down on a particular thread at any given time.

I suppose I should apologise for believing climate scientists on "the science" - and not lawyers and what not with a penchant for conspiracy theories...but there you go : )

(Btw, you're right about the "DATA" - although I prefer to take my direction from those who understand it - and not those devoid of qualification who indulge in crayon practice and then try to pass it off as "science:)

Poirot
Wow. We are amazed at your proof that the world faces catastrophic global warming that policy can improve.

All
Note there was no attempt to actually prove what is in issue? Just an insistence that no-one is entitled to question the authorities?

And all the other warmists have nothing better either, else where is it