**G Larsen**
I agree that it is a step *forward* and not a step backwards, as all the Denialistas wish to frame it.

Regarding Peter Taylor I'd ask, "Show us your peer-review." Sounds like just another blogger getting some of the Denialist dollar, just like our friend Plimer.

**GrahamY**
You still haven't demonstrated the *relevance* of the MWP argument Denialists try to spruik.

Also, regarding the oceans, did you or did you not acknowledge that they are *in part* heated by re-directed infra-red?

**Whitmus** and **Horus**
The issue is not whether he believes in climate change, but what he has modelled about the long term projections. The issue is not whether 1998 was the hottest year on record (but we'll just ignore those backyard boys from NASA on 2005 hey, nudge nudge wink wink?) but *why* it was the hottest year.

It is perfectly consistent to accept the testable, demonstrable radiative forcings of Co2 trapping more heat to our planet, while also acknowledging other forcings. Show me an IPCC report with CO2 as the ONLY forcing will you?

No, climatologists are constantly modelling various other forcings, with both heating and cooling.

Here we have a legitimate paper discussing a strong cooling forcing, and you guys want to take that to invalidate *all* of climate science? Why? Is it too complex for you to accept that El Nino boosted 1998 above the background warming, and La Nina then reduced following short-term temperatures below that trend? Is it hard to grasp that climatologists are modelling *multiple* complex systems and there may be short term surprises in the unfolding story of global warming? You're like kids ignoring the basic physics of Co2 and chanting, "SEEEEEEEE, SEEEEEE, that bit of the graph got cooler!"

Well, duh! Go ahead and cherrypick your next reply, it will just confirm everything I've been saying.

For everyone else NOT blinded by Denialist propaganda, please see Mojib's temperatures for 2050, on page 3
http://www.wmo.int/wcc3/sessionsdb/documents/PS3_Latif.pdf

BTW, see Page 4. How is it fair of us to do that to Sub-Saharan Africans?

I share your sentiments bushbasher.

It is the very 'science' that people think they know that prevents them from understanding it in the first place. For example, just because Mark Lawson/curmudgeon-at-home-and-elsewhere (or GrahamY and Eclipse Now for that matter) links to a paper doesn't mean he/they understand it, or indeed can see the flaws in it.

As we have seen, most so called "sceptics" (or is it 'rationalists' now?) often take the 'science' out of context. As a consequence, they misrepresent or distort what the scientists say. The bun fight between GrahamY and Eclipse Now a case in point.

Whether Mark Lawson did this (misrepresentation/distortion) intentionally or not I cannot say, but there are powerful forces that would benefit from denying AGW and delaying any mitigation measures. Having said that, I can understand why some people believe that Man cannot possibly have as much influence over the climate as has been suggested. They will try everything in their arsenal to show otherwise - I wish them well.

Eclipse,

You have said repeatedly here that when El Nino returns we will see records go through the roof in 2010 or 2011, you have cited Patrick Michaels on this, said how foolish a group of people you have labelled denialists will look when this happens, and expressed your fears for the climate in 2020.

In light of Latif's statements, do you stand by this, in which case isn't it Latif who will look rather foolish, or do you back Latif over the coming "greater warming".

Just a clarification of your view will do.

Eclipsed Now,
I think you’ve badly lost the plot .

1) You are on record on this forum of lecturing that there is no such thing as a short term cooling – now you’re wiggling like a earth worm on a hot concrete path trying to get away from it.

It’s no good referring us to 2050 “predictions” –we are measuring you against what is supposed to happen in the intervening years : you say heating, Mojiob says cooling.

I’m afraid there is nothing else for it ---you’re banished from playing with Mojibs group – next playlunch, please go and play by yourself!

2) “ 1998 was the hottest year on record…” LOL

----The hottest year on record –what, ALL OVER THE WORLD—what ingenious Mickey Mouse formula did you use to determine that?
---- Tell us how long have records been kept for the location(s) in question , then when you have told us that, tell us the estimated age of the earth?

3) “ How is it fair of us to do that to Sub-Saharan Africans (SSAa)?”

ROFL
You’re joshing me...aren’t you, Eclipse?

The regions both north and south of the Sahara have been suffering from creeping desertification for thousands of years . Numerous petrograms in the region attest that what once was lush forest or savannah a few thousand years ago is now deep, dry desert

Translation: it all started l-o-n-g, l-o-n-g before industrial was even dreamed of!

So please tell us how you have determined that GHGs released into the atmosphere, by human activity, is the source of SSAs woes?


And tell us how you have discounted such factors as :
1) Growing populations
2) Poor farming practises
3) Civil unrest in the regions concerned

What I have repeatedly said in many forums, and different threads on this particular forum, is that I really hope the *peer reviewed* science comes up with a few "safety valves" that we had not anticipated.

In other words, while the physics of Co2 and other greenhouse gases seems well understood by the scientific community, the earth is a very, very complex system, and I for one *hope* Latif is right!

However, the rest of the scientific community are fairly unanimous that while they might not have modelled every little perturbation on the temperature graph, they do have a general consensus about the overall TRENDS.

Latif has stated that he's fairly confident in a bit of cooling for maybe one decade, but then expresses less confidence about his model for any longer periods.

But as I've repeatedly said, I'm interested in the 15 to 20 year trends, not the smaller wiggles.

**Horus**
My "No cooling" statements are responding to the demented 1998 argument. Instead of joining the Denialists and pointing at 1998 and yelling "Look at the cooling afterwards!" the experts seem to say "Look at it returning from a super-spike to abnormally hot!"

So the last decade was still the hottest on record. (I always thought that expression was fairly self-evident, being primarily about what we have on the record?!!)

So 1998 was one subject. Make sure you ignore NASA's 2005 though, it might complicate things. ;-)

Latif's model is regarding some FUTURE COOLING that we *might see*. It hasn't happened yet, so don't crow that global warming is over.

Anyway, it's cooler, that is, maybe a slowing in the progression of warming, maybe even cooler than the last decade. This is different to the 1998 strawman, this is actual new data.

And the irony of what Latif was actually saying about the media, and your predictable reaction, could not be more profound.

Eclipse,

Oh what a tangled web. You’ve cornered yourself and are madly throwing up smokescreens.

EN: “What I have repeatedly said in many forums…is that I really hope the *peer reviewed* science comes up with a few "safety valves" that we had not anticipated.”

So! Are you implying you DIDN’T say the above? I can cut and paste quotes from the record if you like.

EN: “while the physics of Co2 and other greenhouse gases seems well understood by the scientific community, the earth is a very, very complex system, and I for one *hope* Latif is right!”

Wow, what an empty comment! I asked you to clarify your view as you have expressed opposing views with equally abusive certainty, and you now have the nerve to mention complexity. Nice escape artist. A bet each way eh? So long as it's set up so others can't win. Not science.

EN: “Latif has stated that he's fairly confident in a bit of cooling for maybe one decade, but then expresses less confidence about his model for any longer periods. “

Sorry a “bit of cooling”, or slowing in warming? Oh, so why should we be interested in his temps for 2050?

EN: “But as I've repeatedly said, I'm interested in the 15 to 20 year trends, not the smaller wiggles.”

NO, you specifically referred to the significance of 2010 and 2011 as being enough to make “denialists” look like “idiots”.

EN: “Anyway, it's cooler, that is, maybe a slowing in the progression of warming, maybe even cooler than the last decade. This is different to the 1998 strawman, this is actual new data.”

NO ECLIPSE. You quoted Michaels and talked of “even greater warming” with characteristic abusiveness.

EN: “the irony of what Latif was actually saying about the media, and your predictable reaction, could not be more profound.”

No, the irony is on you. You have, as Horus picked up, lost the plot