I guess it was too much to hope that you'd actually stick with your admission Eclipsed. I don't have a problem with the observation that the last decade has been the warmest of the instrumental record. I am not going to "admit it" because I've never denied it. I don't waste my time denying facts as you appear to want to do.

It's not an issue that the Kaufmann paper is one paper - it's an example, I'm not running a poll here. There are bound to be others, and more as time wears on.

In terms of the datasets showing 2005 and 2010 as "warmer" than 1998, two thermometer datasets do and one doesn't, and the satellite record agrees that it wasn't, but they are all so close together that in fact there is no statistical difference, so none of them say they were warmer of colder.

I'm assuming you never studied science or statistics, or you would understand that if two answers are within the margin of error then they are the same.

That is why I say it has plateaued over the last 13 years, which is the most anyone can say in either direction.

BTW, you said that the siting of thermometers didn't make any difference. Well Roger Pielke has just published a refereed paper looking at the US land-based sites using observations from Anthony Watts volunteers. Guess what? We now know empirically that it does, most specifically to diurnal temperatures. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf

UOG
you know that at 3% growth, NSW coal RUNS OUT in just 30 years?

Sydney Morning Herald article
http://tinyurl.com/3ye9ax

You know that it takes decades to build out a new energy infrastructure?

You know that most resources DON'T just suddenly 'run out' but peak about half way through their life cycle and then we move from abundant easy to get to cheap coal to decreasing mining production of ever dirtier, hard to get to coal.

You know all this don't you?

If climate change is a hoax, I welcome it because peak coal certainly hasn't set the alarm bells ringing. YET. If we leave it too late and coal prices soar, we may just bankrupt ourselves.

And you're worried about a Carbon Tax? Compared to peak fossil fuels a Carbon Tax will look like a pale ghost, a lame imitation, a Clayton's drink, a decaf espresso, a Lame Duck President, or even an ex-president for that matter. My guess is the moment peak fossil fuels arrives Carbon Taxes will be reversed overnight. Well, they could be.

But on the other hand, by then hopefully we'll have woken up from this paranoid nightmare of Tony Abbott's and be living in the real world where bold new enterprises *are* sometimes kick-started by governments. I mean, would the internet have even started if not for DARPA, and the first $trillion American governments pumped into the net? Yet all you smell is a conspiracy. As Harry Potter might say to a Boggart, "Ridikulus!" and Tony Abbott's nightmares melt like budgie-smugglers on a hot summer's bike seat.

GrahamY

//I guess it was too much to hope that you'd actually stick with your admission Eclipsed. I don't have a problem with the observation that the last decade has been the warmest of the instrumental record. I am not going to "admit it" because I've never denied it. I don't waste my time denying facts as you appear to want to do.//
That's just odd. I know what I said, and I know how you twisted my words. I'm too busy to play childish semantic games.

//In terms of the datasets showing 2005 and 2010 as "warmer" than 1998, two thermometer datasets do and one doesn't, and the satellite record agrees that it wasn't,//
However, which satellite data-set do you refer to?

//but they are all so close together that in fact there is no statistical difference, so none of them say they were warmer of colder.//
Is this what the scientists and agencies actually conclude, or just your opinion? Why do you assert — without any evidence — that NOAA and NASA are just inflating the temps for press releases? (Or however you actually phrased it). I wish *you* would actually stick with your admission, and just leave NASA and NOAA's work alone thank you very much.

//I'm assuming you never studied science or statistics, or you would understand that if two answers are within the margin of error then they are the same.//
And are *you* assuming that *NASA* and *NOAA* never studied science or statistics? Why don't you jump on the phone and explain it all to them then if you have a better reading of their data than they do? ;-)

//BTW, you said that the siting of thermometers didn't make any difference.//
I never said anything of the sort. I explained that there are these things called databases, and when a temperature station is found to be faulty it is easy to delete it and correct the entire database.

I'll stick with the MET and NASA and NOAA, and you can run along and play with Anthony Watt's volunteers.

mr now
thankyou for the 'update'..re coal
going extinct in only 30 years...lol

please inform your buddies
who seem to be decieving themselves re FRAKKING coal gas

the greenies who want an end to coal
thus chose coal gas..are simularilly decieved
how long is the coal gas going to last[as long as coal does?]

so strike one solution..eh?

next realise that AFTER coal gas is extracted..
the coal will still be there[in the 30,000 plus fraked coal gas well deposits

and perhaps your experteaze will find a way
of extracting this coal from the coal seams
eventually..in 30 years i imagine we will mine coal with robots
that pump the coal into the gaslines

[govt is forcing origen
to build for santo's and others
going to clean up big time with selling the frakking [frukked..frukking/gas globally]

its pretty dumb to take scientific advice
as grayham has pointed out to you
from biased sources

logic alone dictates the frakked
free of gas..coal..will be arround long after 30 years
but im getting used to imaginative spin from you alternative energy nutters

with adgendas
im noting you didnt reply grayhams question
re your links to nuke power...so no doudt that has some grains of truth

so your expecting nukes to take over from coal[for baseload]
or are you depending on the frukking coal gas[it gets rather convoluted eh bro..[walking the fine line betwen hope and dispare]

climate 'change' is perfectly real
nz for egsample has snow falling in the coldest winter on record
[lexies snow capped mountains simply is as easy as going to nz]

i never liked the cold
and havnt noticed the half a degree of warming..[over the lasst 50 years],,so look forward to the next half a degree...over the next 50 years your mates predicted would be 3 degrees

i liked it much better
when it WAS global warming
[ie from the hole in the ozone layer]]

before the spin
became cli-mate change

anyhow bro dont get caught in the shadow of the moon
you just might get moonstuck even worse

the sky is falling
quack like a duck

Dear Johan (OUG),

What on earth are you on about?

However, your last couple of lines
made me laugh. They're the
ones about "moonlight."
They reminded me of the old adage:

"Moonlight becomes you.
Total darkness even more!"

Cheers.

only too pleased to ex-plain
dear lexie

mr now...[ecolips]
put up a link saying NSW will run out of coal in 30 years

i pointed out to him that we are spending BILLIONS laying gas lines to over 30,000 frakking gas wells[building their infastructure to gladstone..gateway to trillions of coal gas dollars]

my now...says that all the coal will be gone in 30 years
i remided him about all that coal seam[they are frakking the frukking gas out of[that qwill long be there[till we figure out a way to mine thin coal seams[likerly with robotic mining]

machines im shown..that will run on
the methane their mining releases
that mine the coal and water drags it to the surface

me now keeps bringing up spin verging on lies
[this symptom has ben at every level of the debate]
but as grayham pointed out..the facts are far from being scientificly certain

being based on modeling[model bling]
in lue of fact

the facts revealed...are debatable
thus no consensus egsists[lest we forget this 'concensus as well was built on deception]..ie a email survey...of which less than 100 replied[certainly no where near any consensus]

thus another lie..!

if it was true
if we had the right symptom
if we had the right solution

we wouldnt need lies
lies indicate we have ben lied to

ie conned into a big new tax

yet again!