Cont'd

"...Dessler, the A&M climatologist said that he doubted the research would shift the political debate around global warming.

"It makes the skeptics feel good, it irritates the mainstream climate science community, but by this point, the debate over climate policy has nothing to do with science," Dessler said. "It's essentially a debate over the role of government," surrounding issues of freedom versus regulation."

Roy Spencer was completely open about his reasons for publishing his paper and "cited funding as a motivation for climate change researchers to find problems with the environment."

http://tinyurl.com/3dkxt7d

When one considers that his remarks merely feed into the climate deniers conspiracy theory of all the world's scientists colluding for more money, we gain further perspective as to the reasons for his paper.

The following provided by NASA displays visual effects of global warming.

http://www.livescience.com/11391-earth-checkup-10-health-status-signs.html

Nope, I'm not being sneaky. I have never said that global warming has stopped. All I've said is that there has been no warming for 13 years. Yet you deny that as a fact. Only one dataset has 2010 warmer and that is not statistically significant. I explained that above. You can argue about starting points, but then I'll point out that there has been cooling over the last 10,000 years. Are you going to argue with a 10,000 year trend?

I can see your tactic. Just fill-up the thread with references that have nothing to do with the issue in the hope that people who don't understand will see all your links and decide that you must be erudite.

Your hide the decline stuff is pathetic. Mann's "trick" is not a legitimate technique. In fact it is the worst cherry picking that I have seen. When his proxy didn't show the temperature increase he wanted he spliced in another measurement that did. If he had stuck with the tree rings they would have shown temperature declining when instruments show the opposite, demonstrating that the tree rings are not a good proxy to reconstruct temperatures.

Anyone who defends this trick is dishonest or just plain doesn't understand science.

Ammonite, the problem with all of your quotes is that air temperature is driven by the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface, particularly the oceans, and this is moderated by cloud cover. CO2 and other greenhouse gases act like a jumper making it more difficult for heat that has got in to get out, but they don't drive the system.

Further, earth's climate has been fairly stable for a long period of time, suggesting negative feedbacks predominate. Spencer is much more likely to be correct than the people you cite.

Eclipsed, I'm posting this separately because you ignored me above, but I am curious to know when you decided that nuclear energy was OK.

Graham Y

I source my information from creditable sites such as NASA, Science Journals and so on.

Roy Spencer's discredited (by climatologists around the world) paper was published in Forbes Magazine, a neo-con magazine promoting Heartland Institute, a think tank whose mission is:

"The mission of The Heartland Institute is to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems."

It is not about science, it is all about outmoded economic rationalism.

In every post I have made to this thread I have emphasised the SOURCE of the information I have presented.

OLO readers may be interested to understand the importance of true skepticism compared to the vested interests of most denialists:

"1) How reliable is the source of the data?

The scientific consensus: Tens of thousands of studies published in the peer-reviewed literature and conducted by thousands of researchers over more than three decades of investigation by scientists at every kind of scientific organization (government, independent, skeptic, NGO, University, industry, etc.) all over the world.

The denialists: Bloggers and skeptic scientists associated with free market lobbying groups.



2) Does the source make similar claims?

The scientific consensus: Science is always open to new ideas. That is how science works. Obviously those new ideas have to pass the test of scrutiny.

The denialists: The phrase used in the video, "heretic for the sake of heresy," comes to mind.



3) Have the claims been verified?

The scientific consensus: All claims must meet the test of scrutiny - peer review, replication, many other experiments looking at the issue from many different angles.

The denialists: Any single "data" point is touted as the truth that upsets the established understanding, even long after the "data" has been shown to be misunderstood, misrepresented, or an outright lie."

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977801876

@ Graham
Yes but you're ignoring El Nino super-spiking 1998 above the norm. Because you want to ignore the overall warming trend, it's as if some Japanese soldiers after the fire-bombing of Tokyo turned to each other and said, "Phew, I'm glad that's over! That must have been the worst bombing we've ever experienced so far — maybe the worst we'll EVER experience! The conflict trend is going to reduce from here."

Check out how Phil Jones puts it.

"The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2010. According to the method of calculation used by CRU, the year 2010 was the equal third (see footnote) warmest on record (with 2003), exceeded by 1998 and 2005. The years 2003, 2005 and 2010 are only distinguishable in the third decimal place. The error estimate for individual years (two standard errors is about ±0.1°C, see Brohan et al., 2006) is at least ten times larger than the differences between these three years.

The period 2001-2010 (0.44°C above 1961-90 mean) was 0.20°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24°C above 1961-90 mean). The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.55°C above the 1961-90 mean. After 1998, the next nine warmest years in the series are all in the decade 2001-2010. During this decade, only 2008 is not in the ten warmest years. Even though 2008 was the coldest year of the 21st century it was still the 12th warmest year of the whole record.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Or try this.

"With La Nina in full swing in the tropical Pacific, it is likely that 2011 will be a much colder year globally than 2010. A majority of scientists who believe that Greenhouse gases are heating the earth's atmosphere claim that it's remarkable that 2010 has been so warm, since the El Nino of 2010 has been less intense than 1998. They also point out that this warmth is against the background of continuing weak solar activity."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/12/2010-global-temperatures-a-dea.shtml?postid=103862755

[Deleted for abuse.]