Thanks Jeremy for doing the work on this. Don, if you are going to be the mouthpiece for other deniers by simply repeating their work, your own reputation should lead you to be a bit more critical and honest about the quality of the people and the work you quote.

oh dear,
Another day and another anti-science article by Don. I will nt hold my breath that don will provide a balance view on the actual report. Having got the vapours gushing over his anti-science hero's it's more then he could stand.

Roy Spencer now that's funny.....

'Forget all the scenes you've seen of devastation caused by extreme weather! They didn't happen. No matter the deaths and destruction, just tell yourself you imagined them or dreamt them. '

yea David g forget the great flood from a few thousand years back and instead continue your faith produced by the warmist mob (to call them scientist is an insult). Tsunamis, earthquakes etc will continue but it has nothing to do with Green hyprocrites flying the planet scaring people not to do the same. Dream up a new scare as this one has well and truely been exposed.

Jeremy,

You neglected to mention in your "shoot the messenger" comments that Bickmore was himself criticised for adding to Spencer's model to try to discredit it? You also failed to mention that the very forcings that Spencer was demonstrating are now confirmed by the IPCC?

Don't let facts get in the way of your sermon though, we all know what you are, we are just not sure why.

"You say you plugged in the GISS Model E forcings from TOA radiative effects, but surely Spencer's claim is that there are additional forcings resulting from chaotic internal variability - for example, cloudiness variations. Do the GISS forcings include these?

I thought Spencer's novel claims were about the forcing/feedback distinction, and whether it was appropriate to add upwelling SW and LW at the TOA to derive the TOA forcing when they have different effects at the surface, and he only plugged the data into a noddy model to get a first order estimate of what it meant. He first showed how the conventional feedback diagnosis method applied to the idealised situation with a step-function forcing gives the right answer (saying much the same as you just did), then showed how quasi-random fluctuations in forcing messed this up. Is there much progress to be made in spending a lot of time criticising the noddy estimate, and ignoring what he claims to be the main point?"

OLO seems to be promoting 'anti-IPCC shrill' in the lead up to AR5 - 3rd salvo tomorrow?

I read recently that Don Aitkin claimed to be agnostic on these issues. Who is he trying to fool?

Real agnostics would also disseminate counter arguments, he doesn't.

For Curmudgeon who said;
"The 15 year pause in temperatures is proving a major problem for the global warming community."

No it isn't, look at the time series going back a couple of hundred years - and look at OHC.

Spindoc, the very same Barry Spinx from the right wing Menzies House?

Barry, 'sceptics' having been shooting the messenger (IPCC) ever since FAR - your faux tirade smacks of hypocrisy - as usual.

Insofar as Spencer goes, his need to find an alternative to the significance of human impact (apart from God's work) is well known, at least in the scientific community.

He should keep trying though, not there yet.