Yes, ant, a good example of a fact deficient abusive attack on Realists, which is the best that a fraud backer can do, having no science to justify their position.

The only reference we need from you is to science which justifies your AGW fraud supporting, so we do not expect to hear from you. No more references to nonsense sites, thanks, your posts provide enough of that.

Vaclav Klaus was President of the Czech Republic when he wrote a book about a blue planet in green shackles to express his opposition to the AGW movement, which he pointed out was a political, not a scientific, movement, and totalitarian in its nature. Having experienced communist rule in his lifetime. he considered the AGW movement to be dangerous, because of its methods, which he saw were the same as the communists.

It was amusing to recall how Witless, when asked to provide some scientific evidence to justify his support of the AGW fraud, launched into a tirade about the language used to describe AGW. In true totalitarian style, he demanded censorship. He wants to block the truth by banning certain words, particularly “fraud”, which, of course, is essential to any accurate and truthful description of AGW.

Dear cohenite,

Really?

You were hung drawn and quartered last time you tried this and now you are back for more?

To repeatedly pick the 1998 spike to start your calculations from then claim “the fact that over any time period CO2 and temperature don't correlate” has progressed from clumsy and childish to duplicitous and in my opinion dishonest.

This graph illustrates that spike;

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1993

Just by adding 5 years to the time line we get this;

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1993/offset:-347/scale:0.008/trend/plot/rss/from:1993/trend

As to opinions changing over time do you still not believe in the greenhouse effect? That was one of the most bizarre things I had heard from any anti-AGW person. I'm hoping you have put that behind you.

And I haven't forgotten what you claim for a 'climatically significant' period, or have you changed your mind on that as well?

Dear Leo Lane,

Good to see you have dried the tears, wiped your nose, hiked up your pants and decided to get back into the fray. Welcome.

Mr Redux, a crucial aspect of statistical analysis which alarmists such as yourself ignore is to correlate statistical data with known physical events. The 1998 year is important because like 1976 it shows a climatic reversal. In 1998, or thereabouts, the ocean upwelling which had partially ceased in 1976, causing the Great Pacific Climate Shift, resumed. The cooling effect of ocean upwelling is well documented so the resumption of this physical process reinforces the fact that 1998 is the hottest year and temperatures have flattened since. See:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1650v3.pdf

This is a simple demonstration that correlated data and physical events and process have a temperature effect.

There is NO such relationship between CO2 and temperature.

Your persistence in saying I have been "hung drawn and quartered last time" is evidence of the dominance of your beliefs over any intellectual capacity you may have.

And your mention of the climatic period reveals again you are a conman only interested in scoring points. I don't mind being verballed if the verballer is interesting but you are dull. And tedious. And boring. Your ribald name is the most interesting part of you but I won't go there again due to the confected sensibilities of the alarmists.

So cohenite is now linking to a rejected paper by Stockwell and Cox as some sort of support for an argument. This appears to be typical of the approach that cohenite takes: unpublished work, blogs, papers in political journals like Energy & Environment, anything but the mainstream scientific literature.

So cohenite, perhaps you might like to tell the readers why this paper has failed to appear anywhere in the literature in the nearly 5 years since it first appeared on arXiv? I am sure it will be illuminating.

For those who can’t wait, the reason this has never been published is because it is bilge of the highest order. There has been discussion of this paper before and you can get a flavour of its complete silliness by starting here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14089#243692

I am surprised that cohenite has bothered to dredge this up for another shellacking.

As for the “great upwelling” you have to laugh. 1997-1998 was the strongest El Nino year in the modern record. http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm El Nino years tend to have higher global temperatures compared with neutral and La Nina years.

Wow, and I thought Mr Redux was the king of smug Ipse Dixit; move over we have a new champ: agro!

Thanks agro for that link to our little exchange about the Stockwell paper; I'd forgotten about it; you didn't understand it then and you still don't. Your mental stasis personifies AGW belief; which is to say it is a Luddite like paralysis stuck somewhere in the middle of the 18thC.

The Stockwell paper wasn't published; but it sure made a lot of waves and amongst others McKitrick made good use of the principles:

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/2011-09.pdf

Suck it up Agro, AGW is just another dreary manifestation of the end of the world meme given extra impetus by the spivs making money out of it and the positioning of the nutters into key positions.

Cohenite, AGW or anthropogenic climate change is treated as a political view or belief system by deniers; it is in fact science. I noticed in a previous post you gave a reference that only provided an abstract that did not make sense to the point you were trying to make. Your woodforthetrees likewise is meaningless; red and green lines making a cross with sparse detail about what it’s about are meaningless.
The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration provides actual data.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
What’s happening in Australia in relation to climate change does not worry me as much as what is happening in the Arctic region. Methane and methane hydrates are being voided at unprecedented levels; measured, nothing academic about it.
http://planetsave.com/2013/11/15/methane-emissions-roof-arctic-melts-faster-predicted-arctic-study-group/
Guy McPherson provides a number of references.
Scientific papers show references to prior work; something distinctly missing from papers deniers bring forward:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010RG000326/full
Ice is melting in the Antarctic region, are you going to argue with instrumentation Cohenite:
http://www.livescience.com/39606-melting-ice-pine-island-glacier.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/video/capturing-melting-ice-glaciers-antarctica-22791324
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-15/antarctic-melting-ten-times-faster-than-600-years-ago/4628404
Explains why the Arctic area is being closely watched, it is quite an old reference and 40% of ice has now been lost:
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp
Cohenite, you give David Stockwell as a reference, he uses computer modelling something that deniers dispute create accurate results. Climate scientists use the longest periods to show what trends are happening, they do not break up data to conveniently fit a point of view. I notice it has not been published in a Scientific Journal.
Leo indicated that Vaclav Klaus who was President of the Czech Republic was somebody who indicated he does not agree with anthroprogenic climate change. He has spoken at the IPA and was introduced by Andrew Bolt. The IPA is a neocon political group it has mining interests amongst its members; climate change is not in the interests of their balance sheets. Definitely not a credible source of information, a bit like going to a North Korean leader to have them talk about freedom.