There you have it folks. When the climate clowns are challenged to actually join issue, round and round and round they go. We get their crushing logic: "we must be right because we must be right". That's it. Then comes their killer argument: "look up everyone who agrees with us on the internet".

You guys are a joke.

But let's just get one thing clear. This is all they've got, and all they've ever had. There is nothing more substantial to this belief system which they have yet to disclose. This is it.

It's just an endless repetition of their original BELIEF that human activity is sinful and government is God, an endless equivocation using "science" to mean "those high social status officials whom I unquestioningly believe" and when we challenge them to prove by DATA and answer the issues as to RATIONAL KNOWLEDGE ..... nothing. Nil. Nada. Zip. Just endless circularity and references to their own groupthink.

That's it. Quite disgraceful really. That's why they've gone quiet, all except those they are embarassed to have on their side, like warmair and Poirot, whose attempts are positively puerile.

Come on guys. Stop pretending you don't understand the first principles of rational thought.

What happened, cat got your tongue? Got those data sets yet? Remember to show your workings, won't you, including any discount for futurity and how you derived it.

Honestly, it's like having a conversation with peasants from the dark ages, only they've replaced the church with the State.

Davids
quote
How is that 3C (or more) per century warming the climate models predicted coming along (not)?
________________________________________________________________________________________

The actual prediction is 3 Degs C for a doubling of the level of CO2 with an error margin of 1.5 plus or minus. An increase of anything more than 2 Deg C is thought likely to be disastrous.

A simple fact of life is that it takes some 300 times more energy to raise the temperature of oceans than atmosphere. This should make you realize that the oceans must be absorbing a large part of the extra heat, but until such time as the oceans come back into equilibrium with the rest of the climate system temperatures must continue to rise. Another way to think of it is that the oceans would actually have to cool, in order to maintain the present global temperatures. The recent increase in ocean temperatures mean that surface air temperatures will rise by at least 0.4 Deg C even if we stop the level of greenhouse gases rising today.

Unfortunely it is looking a graet deal wosrt than origonal predicted.

http://www.newscientist.com/special/worse-climate

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/27/nicholas-stern-climate-change-davos

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-faster-than-predicted

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative

Lol, JKJ...someone pulls the string in his back and off he goes for yonks (must be just about finished for this round, I reckon. Trouble is that he'll come out with exactly the same spiel next time, although it might be on a different subject...oh well...)

The term "catastrophic" is a favourite attachment of denialists - and JKJ conforms to type.

And yer all listen up to Hasbeen - he (apparently) has "got the maths" : )

warmair says: "The actual prediction is 3 Degs C for a doubling of the level of CO2"

No that's the computer model predictions.

The actual science says a 1.1C increase for a doubling of CO2. The difference is that the computer models allow for a positive feedback created by the increase in cloud cover created by the increase in temperature.

Unfortunately a recent paper has just shown that the amount of cloud cover has actually decreased so the model's feedback hypothesis is incorrect and hasn't been supported by the empirical evidence.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/global_cloudiness.png?w=640

warmair says: "The recent increase in ocean temperatures mean that surface air temperatures will rise by at least 0.4 Deg C even if we stop the level of greenhouse gases rising today."

Therefore we should be observing a steady increase in atmospheric temperatures - but we don't. In fact we have observed a decrease in global temperatures over the past 10 years.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2003/plot/rss/from:2003/trend

Once again the models are wrong - in fact there have been various papers written on just how consistently wrong the models are.

cohenite, why do you persist in insisting that our climate expertise is so fantastic that you need your questions answered by us? You should be asking the people who did it, i.e. the BOM.

What is the point of asking 'basic' climate questions on a political opinion blog anyway?

I know that you are not really interested in the actual answers, you just want to prove that you think you know more about the subject than your ideological opponents. However, your actual ideological opponents appear to be climate scientists, and they don't live here. They have better things to do.

All this is pointless white noise, but it is fun to occasionally drop in and ridicule your 'expertise' now and then.

BTW, I love this " Anthony Watt’s graph is a reasonable and statistically valid interpretation of what OHC has been doing since the most reliable measure of OHC, ARGO, was introduced in 2003." Does that include the yellow line? Because if it does, then it isn't.

That FOIA guy has a dramatic way with rhetoric doesn't he? All those poor newborns. I'm glad that this appears to be the final release of emails, and also a spectacular breach of privacy. Perhaps when this particular witch hunt is over, everyone can go back to their day job? I love how you guys get so excited about a bit of gossip, like 'the emails have been released' etc., when you have no idea what is in them. Lets trawl around in peoples personal messages looking for evidence of fraud and nefarious dealings, ooooh exciting! You truly are the eunuchs at the orgy.

"You truly are the eunuchs at the orgy."

Well, kudos for that one. Still, I repeat, I'm disappointed Bugsy; you were so helpful on the Knorr deal; your 'input' clarified for me that the AF is a dud concept and confirmed that the assumptions made in calculating CO2 source emissions are just as useless. What a concept: a balance between natural emission and sinks. Fairyland.

I talk to scientists all the time; climate science is basically simple; you establish a mean, isolate a deviation from the mean, hypothesise a reason for the deviation and test the hypothesis against another deviation; ie Koutsoyiannis and hindcasting, or Hansen's 1988 predictions; see:

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/98017416.pdf

von Storch and Zwiers summed it up:

"Climatology was originally a sub-discipline of Geography, and was therefore mainly descriptive (see, e.g., Bruckner [70], Hann [155], or Hann and Knoch [156]). Description of the climate consisted primarily of estimates of its mean state and estimates of its variability about that state, such as its standard deviations and other simple measures of variability. Much of climatology is still focused on these concerns today."

Unfortunately AGW science has subverted this and introduced ideology, politics and money; as a result the science is corrupted.

And this is where I'm smarter than you Bugsy; decades of legal practice, evaluating and summating evidence allows me to recognise a rat when I see it; AGW is a rat.

And while you're right that the science will not be decided on blogs like this, blogs like this will inform the final decision makers at the next election.

So, given that, why do think the BOM and the CC could not even get their own basic facts right?