Dear Leo Lane,

Thanks for that mate, your Andrew Bolt is a gift that keeps on giving.

First according to him there were no increases occurring in sea levels, then they were occurring but not at an accelerating rate, now no such claims rather that the atolls they are impacting are themselves growing or increasing in size at a greater rate than the sea level. Therefore AGW is a crock?

WTF?

How on earth does that work?

One gets the sense that the beachhead from which old Boltie conducts his campaign shrinks each year as he concedes more and more ground.

And then you proudly proclaim his article is further proof that AGW is a fraud. Instead I think another of your heroes has just deflected. The count continues.

Andrew Bolt is closer to the mark on most issues that good old IronPyriteRedux & his travelling snake oil show.

Have you really read that Meehl et al’s paper? Because the comments you are making about it are completely wrong.

Meehl et al. do not argue that CO2 delayed the IPO phase change. What they argue is that CO2 should have been forcing from the 1960s, but this was delayed by about a decade due to natural factors working against that forcing. When that changed in the mid 1970s, the combination of natural and anthropogenic forcings working in the same direction led to a large shift in the IPO within a few years.

As for your arguments against the escalator concept, they provide no evidence that climate change deniers do not see global temperatures as a series of flat responses punctuated by large random and permanent temperature increases, but merely try to argue that ‘warmists’ see normal variation as a catastrophic rise in temperatures. The reality of the situation is that the climate change deniers like to focus on the noise in the data, because that is the only way they can continue to deny that climate change is happening. Or even to argue that the Earth is cooling like imajulianutter does.

Agro, the Meehl paper follows a proud tradition started by Keenlyside which postulated that natural variation masks CO2 forcing:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html

See also Easterling:

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

Curry:

http://www.news.gatech.edu/2013/10/10/%E2%80%98stadium-waves%E2%80%99-could-explain-lull-global-warming

DelSole:

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/dts_jclim_2010.pdf

The point of these papers is that NV can negate CO2 forcing; Meehl says the GPCS would have happened earlier due to CO2 forcing if the NV hadn't dominated it, or as Keenlyside says, "masked" it.

My comment about possession still holds because Meehl speculates that the GPCS would have happened much earlier if CO2 forcing was not compromised by NV. But this makes no sense; the timing of the GPCS is entirely consistent with NV and as Stockwell and Cox show a well documented physical event, ocean upwelling variation.

But here is the really odd part; if NV suppressed CO2 forcing what has happened between 1976 and 1998 with NV in positive phase and CO2 forcing supposedly going through the roof? Shouldn't temperature also have gone through the roof? And what about post 1998 when the upwelling resumed and NV became negative? Has NV again "masked" CO2 forcing?

My guess it is AGW science which is possessed.

Leo you conveniently don’t answer my challenge. I guess that is because you cannot argue against something that is objectively happening.
Newspapers don’t cut the ice Leo, especially a news.ltd one. You might like to see this film clip Leo, it shows Tuvalu flooded. Now how do you explain that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNql8BiAijw
The reference works if you cut and paste it.
Your reference was wrong, low lying land and king tides with storm surges is not healthy. It’s as though Tuvalu is sinking.
Aboriginals, such as the Inuit have an uncanny way of understanding what’s going on in their environments; they recognize the climate is changing:
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/584
In Canada researchers have found that water borne diseases are now more common with Inuit communities due to the rainfall and quicker melt time creating a better environment for pathogens:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2012/04/120405-climate-change-waterborne-diseases-inuit/
So even epidemiological studies bear out that something is happening to the climate,Leo.
Ice melts through being warmed Leo. There are no graphs that can be fudged or information misrepresented or made up.
Now, can you tell me why the material I have posted about the Polar regions is wrong.

It is not difficult,ant. There is an assertion in the material to which you refer, that human emissions are causing ice to melt through global warming. There is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

You have said that the AGW assertion is science based. You are backing the fraud through ignorance or dishonesty.

If you were unaware that there was no science to back AGW when you said it was science based then you are a fraud backer through ignorance.

If you knew there was no such science when you said it was science based then you are a fraud backer through dishonesty.

Please clarify your situation.