cohenite stated "And as I said to ant the lowest point in Arctic sea ice was in 1974."
The discussion was about whether there was more sea ice cover between 1974 or 1978.
This was my comment at the time:
However, the trend line shows that ice coverage has been decreasing for decades. What happens between one season and another is meaningless, changes need to be seen happening over decades. In the 1960s there did appear to be a decline though nothing approaching the period when satellites began to measure ice levels.

There has been a notable decline in sea ice since 1978, it reached a low point in 2012 and did extend further in 2013. Yet, in 2013 the ice was quite fractured and the ice was thin.

Never mind about "logical fallacy bingo" agro; you and the rest of the acolytes will be undertaking the Homer stages of grief when this farce collapses:

"Hibbert: You can expect to go through five stages. The first is denial.
Homer: No way, because I'm not dying!
Hibbert: Second is anger.
Homer: Why you little... Da-! Guuuuuh! Yaaaaah!
Hibbert: After that, comes fear.
Homer: (paranoid) What's after fear? What's after fear?
Hibbert: Bargaining.
Homer: Doc, you've got to get me out of this. I'll make it worth your while.
Hibbert: And finally, acceptance.
Homer: Well, we've all got to go sometime.
Hibbert: Mr. Simpson, your progress astounds me."

Just replace Homer with agro or any other alarmist of choice!

As for poor Bengtsson and the latest excuse from Environmental Research Letters; it's astounding; they say:

"One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al)."

In other words no connection with reality. And this was expected:

"no consistency was to be expected in the first place."

There's your fraud; admitted

cohenite, you use fiction to try and debunk arguments, well done.

On another thread you acknowledged that climate change is happening, though you believe man is not the cause it being the sun.
Quote "That's right ant, climate change is happening; no one disputes that; the issue is what is causing it; my money's on the Sun, you and a decreasing band are saying it is human CO2 [which doesn't glow in the dark]."
Interesting that you should suggest the number of people who believe CO2 is a causation factor is decreasing; when, some major papers have been published this year acknowledging anthropogenic climate change. There has been a dearth of papers published in reputable journals from skeptical scientists.
Such an admission about the sun means that policies need to be developed in relation to low lying regions that are inhabited. Remember you stated "your money is on the sun"

When I gave a few references to show that the sun, if anything, should be cooling temperatures in its present phase, there had been no response, cohenite. Is it a case of the sun being an answer that seemed right at the time?
cohenite, from a reference you have provided a couple of times it is very clear that climate science is a political matter for you rather than a scientific one, something to do with the carbon tax. I also noted there had been requests for financial assistance to aid your site.

You were expecting consistency form cohenite ant? cohenite doesn’t worry too much about whether the arguments make sense. He is an ABC (anything but carbon) arguer.

cohenite some time back linked to the top 10 papers he considered proved AGW was false. The trouble was that each of those top 10 papers was claiming something entirely different i) the globe was not warming; ii) the globe was warming, but it was due to the sun; iii) the globe was warming, but it was due to water vapour; iv) the globe was warming but it was due to clouds; v) the globe was warming, but it had been warmer in the past; vi) the globe was cooling. If any one of these top 10 papers was correct, the other nine had to be wrong. It was like watching the White Queen in action.

"White Queen", eh? You, I presume, agro, are the Jabberwock.

Ant, don't be tedious; of course it's the sun. I linked to 73 papers on the Sun before; here is one again:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0004v1.pdf

Seriously, read it and look closely at Figures 4-7.

AGW as an explanation for climate change is as dead as poor old Jabberwock.

Agronomist, yes, as I implied I think cohenite argues anything that seems right at the time.

But, the sun is not the best choice as the determinant of climate change that we are experiencing.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adAvYK1O-ic&feature=youtu.be