Ho, ho, ho...

Apparently anyone who holds a view opposing cohenite's is a "troll".

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

Janama,

"I'm in Dubai, they don't care about your stupid AGW theories..."

Coming from one of the world's most unsustainable cities, that's not surprising.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=all-of-dubai-underwater-with-climat-2010-01

I wonder?.....

"All of this infrastructure could be out of commission in a century. Nearly all the infrastructure in Dubai could be underwater by 2100."

You are kidding!

It's a shame Scientific American has become a cheap warmist rag instead of the fine science magazine it used to be.

It's an example of just how distorted and corrupt the scientific community has become over the lies and the hoax of climate change and sea level rise is one of the major hoaxes. You only have to go to the beach for sixty years or more to realize there is no sea level rise of any significance.

csteele
Thanks for your challenge which I gladly accept.

A mere demonstration of sustained warming would not establish the warmists' argument, because the argument, as I understand it, is not merely that there's been sustained global warming. If that were the argument, of itself, it would lack any reason to think that
a) it's anthropogenic
b) it's detrimental in effect rather than neutral or beneficial, and
c) policy can improve the net situation.

As I was not at my computer in the 29 minutes you gave me to respond, and as the question you ask, even if I conceded it, would not establish the warmists' case for the reasons I have given, therefore I would like to take up your challenge at the beginning.

So the question I have for you is: what is the warmists' argument in summary? Assuming there is sustained global warming, how do you get from there to a conclusion in favour of policy action?

However I would like you to agree to this pre-condition. If at any time your argument
- assumes a proposition are contending for
- *relies on* personal argument
- misrepresents my argument
- relies on appeal to absent authority,
we are both agreed you lose, okay? And I undertake the same.

You need to be able to establish your own argument by reason and evidence, not just assume everything that's in issue and refer off to someone else.

Do you accept this challenge?

We have seen 2 recent developments in the AGW faux science; one is an other attempt to justify Mann's Hockeystick in the form of the utterly discredited Marcott 'thesis'; the other is an ongoing attempt to remove the lag between temperature movement and CO2 'response'; the latest effort is this:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060

Parrenin’s paper continues Shakum’s work which purported to show that CO2 levels moved first and temperature followed. Shakum is a terrible paper and has been demolished by Eschenbach:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/07/shakun-redux-master-tricksed-us-i-told-you-he-was-tricksy/

Shakum basically cherry-picked his data discontinuing his CO2 proxies about 6000 years ago when they showed an increase at the time temperature began its decline to the present. Willis had previously done a proxy by proxy analysis of Shakum’s data and found nothing to justify Shakum’s conclusion that CO2 preceded temperature when in fact most of the proxies showed temperature and CO2 going in opposite directions. This is confirmed by Lansner’s analysis:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf

It is confirmed by what has happened during the 20thC:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-CO2Temp.gif

And what has happening this century:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000/offset:-347/scale:0.008/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/trend

There is now a concerted attempt to rewrite history in respect of the temperature/CO2 lag which parallels Mann’s hockeystick.

This is the sort of thing which csteele endorses.

Dear JKJ,

Excellent!

Firstly a little house keeping.

If I was after a cheap shot I would now point out that I in fact waited over 12 hours rather than 29 minutes for a reply from you and then make some snide comment about deniers, their figures and attention to detail, but as I'm not I won't. ;)

However I think a general call to treat figures honestly would be appropriate.

Now let us take a look at the proposed rules;

If at any time the argument
- assumes a proposition are contending for
- *relies on* personal argument
- misrepresents the other's argument
- relies on appeal to absent authority,
We are to agree that the offender loses.

You will have to explain “assumes a proposition are contending for”.

The only problem with the list is the mine field is being laid but who is to be setting the pressure sensors? You? Perhaps we should seek someone who we can agree would give a fair adjudication on transgressions otherwise it will be open to either of us picking up the bat and ball and declaring ourselves a winner. Did you have anybody in mind?

Should we perhaps also have a rule that penalises anyone who – misrepresents the question put to them.

For instance I asked of you “exactly what set of figures would need to be produced before you would acknowledge the world is experiencing sustained global warming?” but you went on to qualify the question then answer your own qualifications without addressing the original.

You were not asked what the 'warmist' argument was rather what you would need to see to be prepared to acknowledge the world was experiencing sustained warming.

Once resolved I am happy to address what you have put to me.

Hi csteele - you're keen! : )

I just thought I'd toss this into the ring...John Abraham debunking Watts (always entertaining).....

http://oilprice.com/Interviews/Real-Pragmatism-for-Real-Climate-Change-Interview-with-Dr.-John-Abraham.html