AND THE GRAph gaff goes on

REDux/quote..<<..So yes the graph can have negative figures but you are entirely correct when you say you can not take quantitative values from it>>

sorry but rubbish out indicates rubbish in
if the input iS FRUIT..THE ANSWER MUST BE IN fruit

but as you lost me on this topic from the first post redirection
that gave us the graphic sic..i must dispute THE CONCLUSION..<<..thus when Viv asserts “the impact of each tonne has decreased, significantly>>..

I RECALL THE DAYS WHEN I MYSELF INSTALLED THE ANTIPOLLUTION STUFF INTO THE generator stacks AND SEE HOW WE CEANED UP THE AIR..ETC IN SHORT Reduced the impact

wether that measures gaff ic lie i couldnt aver
but whatever it STANDS UP AS MUST BE LESS..JUST LIKE A FURNACE RUNNING AT pea efficiency or choked into smoke[un burnT FUEL]

<<..- currently it stands at +0.00000000000021°C/tonne” he is of course talking through his hat!>>ITS TOO NEAT A redux of complicated matters/in this case confounded by/rather than simplified by redirecting the topic onto a graph..

WE ARNT TALKING ABOUT CUREs nor causes only numbers put onto a gaff
A HOOK..TO MAKE THE REDIRECTION ..that refuses redirection..cause that's all they got

but for the drowning polar bears and high tide COMING UP..10 METERS..I WOULD THINK IT FUNNY..FUNNY WE DONT GOT THAT FALLING TIDE THAT Reveals who been swimming nakid

Hasbeen: "Just thought this should be brought to the attention of those previously taken in by the unprecedented global warming fraud."

What he's talking about is weather. The following, regarding the "unprecedented" rate of temperature increase, is about climate over 11000 years:

http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf

There's this on Marcott's analysis:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/for-the-record/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Perhaps something preceding the last ice age can be found to match the current situation, Hasbeen?

Posted on the wrong thread sorry

GrahamY wrote in an earlier post;

“For my money Viv is more honest, and likely to be more correct, irrespective of what companies he is involved with.”

And I conceded in a latter reply referencing the graphic that was posted in the body of the article;

“So the question becomes was this by design or oversight? If it was the former the claims regarding the author's honesty should be judged in that light. If it were the latter, which I am inclined to suspect, then it speaks to the author's familiarity, or lack thereof, of scientific convention, which is also quite damning.”

But my attention has been drawn to another of the graphs on Viv Forbes' site http://c3headlines.typepad.com/

The particular article can be found here;
http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/02/climate-science-consensus-60-years-hadcrut-global-warming-those-stubborn-facts.html

To create this piece of nonsense Mr Forbes went to the climate record picked 1893 which happened to be the coldest year in the decade surrounding it and 1953 figure was the warmest in the decade surrounding it. He did not take aggregates of temperature anomalies but just picked 3 years 50 years apart. This was not oversight, this was absolutely by design and to top it off he claimed that “Climate Science Consensus: Last 60 Years of Global Warming Below Earlier Periods, Experts Say”.

There were no experts saying this, just the author himself. That is the second time the author has claimed authority for his graphs which is demonstrably not there.

I withdraw my caveat that these unfortunate graphs might have been the result of oversight and therefore my statement “the author's honesty should be judged in that light” is now my only position.

Mr Redux is on a role and obviously has a lot of time on his hands. He'll love this one:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg

Any statistical analysis of climate stands and falls on its correlation with real, physical events. The above graph is well correlated with physical climate factors.

Some mothers do 'ave 'em Mr Cox.

You have been telling us at length that there has been no warming for the last 16 years, so that graph you linked to must be wrong.