"Pffft"

Well yes, qanda...it gets like that sometimes : )

cohenite,

Graham Readfearn, I'm sure you'll be thrilled to know, has summed up a whole lotta "skeptic" rant from the last week or so.

I'm sure you'll understand why I have to link to it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/planet-oz/2013/may/02/how-climate-scientists-being-framed

Seriously Poirot, you expect me to respond to Readfearn? What next, Christine Milne?

Neither you or the aptly named Q&A have responded to the article and its points, particularly the 3 diagrams which are as plain as can be done and are contradictory of AGW.

If people believe in AGW then they can imagine anything they want.

I'm not interested in that or the casting aside of empirical evidence.

If you want to talk about the diagrams please do but don't bother me with the ratbaggery of people like Readfearn.

Sorry about that, cohenite.

I don't know what came over me.

Don't be too disappointed with the lack of engagement with the substance of your article.

It's only OLO, after all.

The three 'diagrams' cohenite?

Surely you don't mean the three graphs you presented, two of which are just plain screenshots of out-of-context calculated trendlines without actual data points? You could have at least included the 95% confidence limits on those trends, i.e. the ones that show statistical significance?

Sorry, but all of those three "diagrams" wouldn't pass muster for any journal, except perhaps Energy and Environment, and even then I'd be doubtful.

You should have consulted with your mate Stockwell in Emerald, he would have told you.

Thank you Bugs for that welcome light relief; confidence levels, that's a good one; the first and 3rd graphs are from WFT and show a graph of actual temperature data; they are not estimates and do not need confidence levels.

The middle one is a comparison of Hansen's model estimate of temperature trend compared with actual temperature trend based on actual data; in that instance the confidence level is the actual data; which is why I am not confident about AGW science, Hansen or you.

I'll tell David you said hi.

Wood For Trees

http://tinyurl.com/4Bugsy

With sharp tools comes great responsibility... Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it's easy to get misled - or worse, still to mislead others ... eh Mr Cox!

http://www.woodfortrees.org/