warnair
Words and phrases such as ‘simulation’, ‘theoretical study’, ‘conservatively estimated’, ‘Observed decreases in BT trends are expected’, ‘simulated spectra have been calculated’, ‘Based on abstract’, ‘used to simulate the changes’, ‘a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established’,(without reference to proof) ‘The accuracy in surface temperature and cloud feedbacks, however, is limited by the ambiguity in their fingerprints.‘ are common in the first five or six of the articles you quoted.
All tend to suggest to me there is much uncertainty and mere guess work in all those papers. None attempt to or explicitly prove the human link.
Throwing a multitude of this type of work at me as proof is lazy. At the very least you should read it first.

Warmair, you do not answer the question, because you do not read the irrelevant papers to which you refer. You have no science to justify your position
Please bear in mind that one the difficulties of the AGW fraud promoters is that the CO2 content of the atmosphere has risen without the resulting rise in a rise in temperature as predicted by the fraud backers. The warming which occurred prior to 1998, released natural CO2 into the atmosphere. This increase is asserted by the fraud backers, without any scientific basis, to have come from human emissions

There has been no increase in global temperature for going on 17 years, leaving the global warming assertion in tatters, and the fraud backers desperately lying about increasing global temperatures.

Any chance that you will acknowledge the truth, and stop wasting everyone's time,?

Dear Leo Lane,

Lol. That post to me was pretty lame my friend.

You are dancing around the link it like its a bomb about to go off. It ain't a bomb mate. You are allowed to open it.

Look, you made the statement earlier in this thread that “There is no science to support the AGW assertion” and that “effect is so trivial that it has no scientific significance, and is not measurable”. You then went further stating quite emphatically that “There is plenty of proof that there is no current global warming. The temperature is not rising.”

So it is perfectly reasonable for me to ascertain whether the science you are using to assert the former is the same science you are using to assert the latter.

I chose the Wood for the Trees site for a couple of reasons. The first it was used by one of your side, Cohendite, therefore one as vociferous as he accepting it as valid I felt would have quelled any misgivings you might have had. Secondly the author of the site appears pretty keen on presenting the raw data and letting us make of it what we will.

So I felt it was neutral ground and eminently suitable for the task at hand. If you reject it then the obvious conclusion is, barring Hobart getting a run of 50 degree days, you are firmly entrenched in your view on the topic and it is a pointless exercise anybody attempting to present evidence to change your mind.

Indeed it makes you a fundamentalist.

Here is the link again.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

Dear utternutter,

Shhh.

warmair, the point is how long the current pause [actually cessation] in temperature increase has been going.

I showed that with the most reliable indice, RSS, the cessation is over 17 years; all the other indices show periods up to the present of no temperature increase for periods less than RS.

The salient point is that all those periods are up to the present. No one disputes the 1990s were hot but to truncate your period at a point before the present is not just cherry-picking it is nonsense because as your own time selection shows the trend has FALLEN since that period so extrapolation from your period as you foolishly do is, as I say, nonsense.

Seriously, read the Brozek link I provided with Nick Stokes. Stokes is one of the smartest guys going around, smarter than me with statistics and certainly ahead of you. He believes in AGW but even he knows that the temperature trend has gone no where for a long time; read this or give up:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/03/statistical-significances-how-long-is-the-pause-now-includes-september-data/

Steele, are you on medication?

Steele, I have seen plenty of sites like woodfortrees, and the assertion of evenhandedness is usually an assurance that they are pushing for the fraud, like the deceptively named “Skeptical Science” run by the disingenuous fraud backer John Cook who recently made a spurious claim of a consensus of climate scientists.

A site selected for a purpose by Cohenite does not make it one acceptable to me. Whatever game you think you are playing, leave me out. I just want a rational response from you.

You will not even disclose the basis on which you support the fraud. All we know is that you have no science to back you, and you will only respond to inquiry with inane questions.

hey guys
here is how Steeleredux does things.

'I did not set out to be completely historically accurate in my analogies
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 20 January 2014 10:23:58 AM

'Then it would be reasonable to assume you use the same inaccuracy producing methodology in all your pronouncements... including those pertaining to warming.'
Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 20 January 2014 5:21:47 PM

There has never been a denial.