Poirot,

So if the science is just as good as ever and it’s not “negated”, and the short term economic imperatives can’t be the reason for 117 nations (not all of which are dealing with economic imperatives) to refuse to sign up to a new Kyoto, what went wrong?

Poirot, it’s not my science that is causing the problem, I don’t understand either side of the scientific debate. But you do, so can you please explain what has gone wrong?

We have one global theory to get you started, Alan Jones? See below.

Shalmaneser,

Good point, CSIRO versus Alan Jones?

Never thought of that but now you come to mention it, I just wondered how many of the original 117 Kyoto signatories would have heard of Alan Jones? Then I thought, I wonder how many of the world’s top 30 renewable energy corporations as listed on the RENIXX stocks index, would have been listening to Alan Jones?

Then I turned my attention to the worlds collapsing emissions trading markets and thought Ah Ha! They’ve all been listening to Alan Jones.

There are those who genuinely marvel at the power and international reach of our humble Sydney shock jocks, awesome.

“that histogram has non-overlapping bins. It is not made up of a moving average”

I never said it was. I used the histogram to show the discrete nature of the yearly/monthly or whatever bin division of data you use. The notion that a moving average causes bin overlap is a statistical fiction; the bins remain discrete, however the average parameters will cause an overlap of the data value of the bins as it moves along the data. I showed how that can produce false results.

I also used the histogram to show the 2nd degree polynomial which Watson uses; this is appropriate when you are looking for either a rise/acceleration or decrease/deceleration in the data. Watson uses a 20 year moving average to isolate long-term sea trend free of the short perturbations.

I have explained to you why Newcastle has a different sea level history than Sydney; you have ignored that reasonable explanation; go away and research isostatic effects.

Your persistent misrepresentation of H&D is egregious; they say:

“To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.”

In short they do represent the full range of data well beyond your 1930.

Good to read your resort to insult; as a chump I’d like to respond in kind but I’ll stick with disingenuous.

Poirot:

“The science is stronger than ever...”

No, just your gullibility.

Poirot,

OK, we are making real progress here. It’s not the science of CAGW that has failed; in fact it is “stronger than ever”.

So it is categorically not the science. OK?

It can’t be the “short term economic imperatives” because most of those nations who originally signed up for Kyoto don’t exhibit economic pain. It can’t relate to the global renewables industry because they actually wanted to make money out of it, as do the emissions trading markets.

So, short term economic imperatives are out. OK?

Given that Alan Jones has a spectrum license for NSW and as far as I know, he does not broadcast globally, but I could be wrong.

So I think we can safely rule out Alan Jones as a major global influence. OK?

As for the “denial industry through the dissemination of shonky science”. I thought that the warmertariat had always said that they never accepted the denialists’ science. In fact for the last 15 years the skeptic, denialist, flat earthers and their science have been roundly rejected and abused. So how can your team now claim that it is someone else’s shonky science that’s to blame when you never accepted it in the first place? The CAGW infrastructure was never built on skeptical science, it was built on yours.

So if shonky science was never accepted or used, I think that too is out. OK?

Now let’s look at the “veritable army of no-science drones invading the net” Ah those pesky drones. But hang on a minute, if these drones are no-science net invaders, who was listening to them and how have they brought down this monumental global infrastructure?

No, I think this reason has to go as well. Net drones are out I’m afraid. OK?

So tell us. What precisely did the CAGW infrastructure hear from us and our fearless international broadcaster Alan Jones that caused them to up stumps and leave a global market worth some Trillion Dollars 5 years ago? Did they know that the science was “stronger than ever”? Have you told them Poirot?

spindoc,

I made no reference at all to Alan Jones.

Having said that, shock jocks do their bit for the denial movement by disseminating junk science, but only as an adjunct to their main purpose of dog-whistling the gullible right.

It's a thrill a minute!

This is the best History of Climate Change Science I know of.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

Of course if you are interested in conspiracy theories I am afraid you will be badly disappointed.

Anthony, you really aren’t getting this are you? As soon as you have a moving average, some of the data occurs in more than one bin. For example, with a 20-year moving average, each year will be represented 20 times – i.e. in 20 different 20-year averages. This is all pretty simple and I am struggling as to why you keep claiming it is not so. Any analyses that assumes the data in the different bins is independent will be wrong, because the same data are represented over and over again.

“I have explained to you why Newcastle has a different sea level history than Sydney”

So if other (non-climate change) factors are dramatically changing the sea level at Newcastle, they should be corrected for before trying to analyse the data for sea level effects. Don’t you think? So why did Watson not do this? That was exactly my point.

“In short they do represent the full range of data well beyond your 1930.”

An valiant attempt at goalpost moving, but one doomed to failure.

My argument about Houston and Dean was not that they didn’t include other years of data, but that they started the analysis at 1930. Had they started the analysis at any other year between 1870 and 1960, there would have seen no deceleration and for most of those start years there would have been an acceleration of sea level rise