cohenite,

It's very simple.

People like you who have little scientific expertise actually back yourself on your knowledge against real scientists.

When your demonstration of your prowess is blown out of the water by real scientists, you adopt your fall-back position of calling them shonks and frauds.

Actually I do know why it's only "climate' scientists who are singled out for this treatment.

It's because their conclusions threaten the status quo regarding big oil and big business.

So you and all the other junk science purveyors are happy to do their bidding, resting on little more than mud-slinging and name-calling.

As I said, simple really.

Typical slur by the resident princess about the connection with big oil.

The thought that any citizen would want their science, particularly about the weather, untainted by green ideology and the vanity invested in AGW, not to mention any citizen being concerned about the huge money pro-AGW scientists and the AGW get, and the obscene distortion of investment in the failed technology of 'green' energy at the expense of viable energy alternatives, never enters your little head does it? You have to assume I and other sceptics are in the pay of big oil; talk about a rigidity of mind.

As for being blown out the water princess, that's impossible, sea level is rising so fast no matter how far above the water you are blown the sea level always rises faster.

Anyway I'm still waiting for your mate Lucifer to defend Shakum et al against the clear, well explained complaint I made against it, just as I do with every bit of hokus pokus masquerading as science by the AGW crew.

Perhaps you'd like to have a shot at defending Shakum et al; have you even read it; have you read any paper? This reverence towards AGW science is bizarre; what makes so-called experts of AGW so special? As I have said the predictions of AGW have been a dismal failure; any normal, reasonable area of science would have packed its bags long ago but AGW science isn't normal or reasonable.

Anyway this paper says it better than me about the failure of AGW 'forecasting':

http://www.kestencgreen.com/gas-2009-validity.pdf

cohenite,

"Anyway this paper says it better than me about the failure of AGW 'forecasting':"

Forecasting like this:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120803_DicePopSci.pdf

Yes, I know you have a problem with the burny pic at the top.

But.....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-17/live-blog3a-nsw-bushfire-emergency/5028762

It's mid October as well, early for the season to erupt - as opposed to mid Dec/Jan.

As it sits, the planet as you know, with the understanding that change is a constant, while cause and effect is the 101 of our time, the third equation is just to ride it out, which you have NO choice in my small and tiny blue-collar brain/world:). (keeping in mind we are dealing with a planetary organism) This planet is universal (which most think there’s only one of) keeps within a structure of balance far beyond our current understandings. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1113#19789

See, the great thing about the all, is that we have no clue of it, and yet it surrounds you.

Just go to the Lord……its easier.

Humour and satire…don’t live without it:)

All the best.

Planet3

You do this repeatedly Poirot; link to stuff and do not explain it; figures 2 and 3 from Hansen's article purport to show shifts in temperature to hotter means during the current decades.

Do you have the wit to understand why these graphs are statistical sleight of hands, no more than con jobs to scare the children and child-like?

Of course not.

Hansen uses a base period of 1951-1981. This temperature period was dominated by a cooling period from 1945 -1976. From 1976-1978 there was an abrupt jump in global temp; this is well documented. Because the majority of the period is cooler than average but with an end point step up in temperature using this base period to compare other time periods will create a distorted warming effect for 2 reasons.

The first is a result of simple averaging which will make anomalous temps in other periods higher.

The second is due to the step in temps happening at the end of the period. After 1978 temps were at a higher plateau which gives the illusion of higher anomalies even if there is no warming trend through the post 1978 period, which there has not been.

Australia scientist Dr Bill Johnson has shown this step effect on temp:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image012.png

As you can see the step in 1978 meant the succeeding period was warmer than the preceding base period even there was no further temp increase. A distribution curve like the one used by Hansen will shift to the right on the basis of the step and show a skewing even though there is no sustained temp increase effect. Johnson shows that temp moves in steps up and down and this simple fact completely contradicts AGW which supposes an incremental and sustained temp increase due to CO2 increase.

Your support of AGW is emotional and ideological; your brain is not engaged; accept that.

After scrolling through the posts, I read http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167. It's not an easy read, even though I have a background in statistics, and in one of the proxy data sciences (I'm not a climatologist).

First a general comment: one paper cannot prove or disprove global warming. Each paper is just a contribution on some facet, and understanding by scientists comes by two steps forward, one step back, a couple sideways, and a lot of serious debate.

Comment on this paper: As has been pointed out, the author is cautious about the significance of the results: "Fig. 4 ... simply shows that the “null hypothesis” that pCO2 and climate are unrelated cannot be rejected on the basis of this evidence alone." In other words it does not prove that CO2 and climate are unrelated. The author restricts himself to a very narrow analysis (which is fine in itself) and makes minimal interpretation. A couple of key points are alluded to but not elaborated on: eg diversification of land plants, continental collisions.

A pity, because to my mind some of the implications leap off the graph in Fig 4. The earlier, high C02 period straddles the time when land plants evolved and spread in a very high C02 atmosphere which they converted to a low C02/ high 02 atmosphere. Why are there extreme swings in the graph here? I don't know, but I would suggest looking for correlations with the geological/fossil record. Then, the decline in C02 after 175my more or less coincides with the breaking up of Gondwana, the mountain building as the continents collide, and ocean deepening (and the entombment of much C02 in biomass which turned into oil and gas).

While this is a very simplistic summary, the basic point is that the earth was a very different place in the earlier part of Fig 4 and the difference in C02 between the earlier and later periods must have a complex multi-factorial explanation. Can either section of the graph, or the graph as a whole be used to predict future trends? I doubt it.