Thanks rstuart,
I will now go and read the article again with your
commentary alongside me.

Thanks

Having read the link provided by Bazz, I would agree with runner that there are serious ommissions. While it has included legitimate dampening effects on climate change, it has ommitted the accelerating effects that have an exponential effect.

These would include the uptake of water vapour into the atmosphere as it warms, the exposure of land in Greenland and Antarctica which absorb energy etc.

Likewise the exponential curves predicted by the greens are the other extreme of using all the accelerating effects and none of the dampening effects.

Myself I would prefer to use the linear approach until I see reason to change.

hadz wrote: "So sams are you saying those 2 graphs aren't from the respective IPCC reports that I was referring to?"

I expect they are. It is interesting that they are provided without proper labelling or even the original captions, and the context is fabricated in what is clearly a deceptively written blog as I have explained already.

"You can't debunk my argument based on the fact that the 2 graphs are in a blog that you don't like."

You haven't actually presented an argument. If you have some scientific argument, then present it in one of the peer-reviewed climate science journals that I keep pointing out, and allow the climate scientists to debunk it for you, should you actually make it into publication.

You can read more about the medieval temperature issue here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

To readers save time, the gist is that no matter how you stack the models back in periods where there were less reliable measurements, the conclusion that the current regime of climate change is caused by humans is unaffected. This is perhaps most clearly explained by the 2006 US National Academy of Sciences report:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676