Jeez, LEGO.

You've posed some real clinchers there.

"The ABC shop is still selling that DVD on Earth heading towards a new Ice Age. I would love to buy it, but at $45 bucks it is a bit much for me in my present financial state."

".... I also heard that Climate Change Commissioner Tim Flannery recently bought a waterside home. You don't think he started this rumour about global warming to get himself some cheap sea side land, do you?"

And....the Pièce de résistance:

"Lastly, our own former Prime Minister John Howard has recently claimed that he was conned by climate change and he has declared himself a "climate change agnostic.""

Ho, Ho, ho.....

Well that makes all the difference!

Agro, I'll ignore Poirot who is off with the pixies; you know in your vestige of a mind that AGW is a farce yet you still persist. Keenlyside was the first of many papers, like the Curry and Lui ones I link to above and which you ignore, which have amusingly attempted to explain the failure of their theory on the basis of the fact that temperatures are not going up despite rising CO2. Here are some more:

http://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5600

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf

http://www.cawcr.gov.au/staff/jma/Decadal.trends.Meehl.JClim.2013.pdf

http://journalofcosmology.com/QingBinLu.pdf

I love these papers; they are so inventive in their reasons for the failure of AGW. You are so flummoxed by this that you claim Keenlyside does not predict global cooling; no he just predicts a failure to warm. Can the English language sustain so much torture? Perhaps not so lets look at the same conclusions in German:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-cache/abkuehlung-kommt-fakten-zum-klimawandel-seit-der-kleinen-eiszeit/

Don't be a dumpfbacke all your life Agro.

Anthony, Oh dear, oh dear oh dear. You do have trouble with this stuff. Having demonstrated that Keenlyside did not predict a cooling period, but merely predicted that temperatures would not rise for a while, we should look at what Li et al. says. Their important conclusion is:

“NHT in 2012–2027 is predicted to fall slightly over the next decades, due to the recent NAO decadal weakening that temporarily offsets the anthropogenically induced warming.”

Firstly, it is northern hemisphere predictions only. Secondly the prediction is for a temporary effect based on a model proposing a cyclical nature of a long-term oscillation in weather systems will offset the warming caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Within Li et al. is the prediction that when the systems go back the other way, the warming will be back with a vengeance. Indeed, Li et al. in Figure 3b show an underlying trend of about 0.9 C per century warming for the NH caused by anthropogenic factors.

Next to Wyatt and Curry. This really is a poor piece of work. Wyatt and Curry’s stadium wave hypothesis has no physical explanation as to why it would occur. It is simply an exercise in curve fitting and only appears as a signal in the noise if you treat the noise in a particular way. Wyatt and Curry’s explanation as to why the signal would be there seems to be “because magic”.

I could go on and on about these papers you dredge up from the margins of the climate science literature, the Journal of Cosmology for example, and then you fail to understand what the authors are claiming about their work and are unable to critically analyse the conclusion.

It seems to me that your assessment of the quality of anything to do with climate science is based entirely on whether it conforms to your political beliefs. That is religion, not science. You appear to simply blindly follow Anthony Watts. Everytime Watts comes up with a new, and wrong, explanation of why human activity can't influence climate you come and post it over here.

How clever Agro! AGW has always been compared to a religion what with its gaia and apocalyptic visions and prophecies. Yet you reverse the comparison and compare scepticism to a religion; how witty; you must have been a hoot in sophistry 101.

All those papers and many more look at natural variation being greater than AGW to produce the predicted cooling over the next period from a decade to 50 years. That's their spiel. It makes no sense.

In those periods where the natural variability was correlated with AGW the AGW period should have been much hotter; for instance the 1990s. What happened to natural variation then?

Then there is the issue that the temperature trend for the first half of the 20thC is the same as for the second except there was no AGW during the first half:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/1895-1946_1957-2008_temperature-compare.png

Isn't that hilarious Agro; where's the dampening effect of natural variation then?

Then we have those pinnacles of AGW science Foster and Rahmstorf who removed natural factors from the temperature trend to isolate a pure AGW temperature signal:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

Foster and Rahmstorf were left with a range of 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1 as the ‘pure’ AGW forcing. This rate was constant from 1979. This should have set the alarm bells ringing for a start since CO2 was increasing exponentially during this period; if the dominant forcing factor was increasing the AGW temperature effect should also have been increasing regardless of natural variation. Or are you saying natural variation somehow adjusts in response to AGW? You wouldn't be the first.

F&R say this about natural factors:

“Short-term cyclical factors like ENSO and the solar cycle average to about zero net effect over time, and volcanic influences are temporary.”

That is wrong and it encapsulates everything that is wrong about AGW; that is nature would remain in balance if it were not for AGW. Is that what you believe [sic] Agro?

Poirot, I have lived long enough to see so many doomsday scenario's advocated by hysterical people come to naught that my bullsheet antennae automatically rises when I hear another. Everything from global warming to global cooling. We are going to get hit by an asteroid. The next influenza epidemic will wipe out the human race. Aeroplanes will drop out of the sky because of the Millennium bug. We are running out of oil. We are running out of food. The next coronal mass ejection will destroy the Earhs electricity grids and civilisation will be destroyed.

Get a grip.

Scepticism about global warming began when the first expensive gabfest about that subject occurred in Europe in the worst blizzard ever recorded. The climate "scientists" who advocate it have been caught suppressing any data which contravenes their view. The geologist scientists dispute the predictions of the climate change scientists. There have just been too many ridiculous claims by climate change advocates that are so obviously potty that their credibility is eroding. Everything from Tim Flannery's "The dams will never fill again" to the latest BS claim that bushfires have never occurred in September.

But probably the most pertinent fact about global warming is that it is advocated most by the trendy lefty brigade who can always be relied upon to do the opposite of what everybody else does, and who have an uncanny ability to always back the wrong horse.

Lego,

<<But probably the most pertinent fact about global warming is that it is advocated most by the trendy lefty brigade who can always be relied upon to do the opposite of what everybody else does, and who have an uncanny ability to always back the wrong horse.>>

LOL

Yep that is the most reliable measure!