have you ever felt the heat drop
when a cloud passes infront of the sun
[or when the moon does its eclypse..of the sun]

thing is the models are fraud
...""They develop a climate model..with all the variables,
and then test them against past history..""

thing is we have had model/bling...for ages now
so we can ACTUALLY conpare the predictions
WITH THE ACTUAL DATA

to continue testing with the past
clearly suits the model..cause the predixctions are way off base

""to see how accurately they are running.""
is as easy as seing if the predictiion...WAS true
[without added inputs...as they continually update the bling]

compare peredictions
[make sure the 'prediction' wasnt 'adapted'
as errors began to compound

""They take the model back to 1960
with given pollution,..fossil fuel consumption, etc
from historical records,..and much like a computer game in fast forward let the model run forward for a half century or so.""

so seal the predictions up tight
then compare the predictions with that they THEN predicted

""This picks up variables and errors""
from going back to the past
with THE LATEST model[bling]

""and so the models have become increasingly sophisticated.""
as the new models include factors
the orgional models didnt have..!

thus they were constructive lies
next latest 'model'..again going back to what was
when the model they used THEN...neds comparing to its prediction WITH the facts of today..

[and if its wrong..they simply tweak..
or make a new bit of bling..modelular bling]

modeling is highly flawed
live with the lies past..!

Hi Lexi, I don't owe you an apology - you owe it to Salby and the Hendersons. It is not a rebuttal to say you disagree with their politics therefore anything they present is wrong. And by using their politics as the excuse you implicitly criticise Salby for the same reason.

The problem with this whole debate is that people like you and Eclipse aren't interested in the science, you're only interested in whether your side or the other side is saying it, and as a result you're politicising a debate that ought to be mostly about facts.

Eclipse, unless you show how much money is spent on boosting climate catastrophe your figures on how much was given to the skeptical side are meaningless. From what I know most of them don't get funding of any sort for their work and do it in a voluntary capacity, because they think facts matter.

Not that sources of funding change facts anyway.

BTW, when it comes to misrepresenting things you take the cake. For example 1998 was the hottest year. According to a couple of terrestrial datasets it may have tied with 2010, and according to another it was hotter than 2010. But according to satellites, which are the most reliable, 1998 was definitely the hottest.

If you want examples of climate scientists lying then you only have to look at the Mann Hockey stick where they spliced together incompatible datasets and didn't bother to tell anyone that the reason they did that was because the first dataset didn't show warming in the second half of this century.

For the tropospheric hotspot anyone interested can check the temperature out on this page http://climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Global temperature trends (you'll have to scroll down). Minimal warming, if at all.

Or one can go to direct sources such as NASA (explains climate as opposed to weather):

http://climate.nasa.gov/

Australian Bureau of Meteorology (info about extreme weather events):

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/special-statements.shtml

CSIRO (explains climate change)

http://www.csiro.au/science/Changing-Climate.html

As opposed to a cobbled together list designed to confuse rather than inform.

@ UOG,
utterly incomprehensible gobbledygook as always. You didn't read ONE of the links I provided that show the peer reviewed temperature.

@ GrahamY — Do you really follow the logic of what you are suggesting? Seriously?

1. According to your paranoia about government funding, we should abandon ALL public health studies and cancer research and dietary information and nano-technology and computer science and EVERYTHING the government has ever subsidised because of that horrifying spectre of a government gravy train.

2. Both government and PRIVATE funding goes to climate science and National Academies of Science that all verify the AGW hypothesis. How do you explain EVERY National Academy of Science on the PLANET agreeing with AGW? You know that they are funded differently right — some from corporations and some from the government sector? But they all agree. Why?

3. Which leads us to ... what a *terrifying* world you live in. I genuinely think that if I believed what you believe that I would be far more anxious. Because if I were you, I would apparently believe that there was a worldwide plot to pervert most public and private study into AGW for nefarious political ends. It is "The End of Days" stuff, signs of the Apocalypse. What motivates you to think this way? What a mind job you've done on yourself!

As for temperatures:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

And "The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

El Nino is the kid making waves in the bathtub, AGW is the tap left on.

I still think it is a great thread.
Do not force my view on others, but still think it is real and indeed believe far more scientists do than do not.
I have no understanding at the level some do but watch with interest.

Eclipse Now, I think you're a long format troll. You said earlier that this issue was about English comprehension. Assuming yours is OK, then there is no way that you could think I said we shouldn't spend government money on research and services. You made all that up. Just as you made a lot of your rebuttal up.

The fact is that far more money is spent by people and organisations trying to prove that global warming is happening, than is spent trying to show that some parts of the IPCC story are wrong. There is no money being spent, that I have ever heard of, trying to prove that global warming isn't happening. Everyone accepts it is warmer now than it was 100 years ago.

When it comes to the last 13 years, if you look at the data you will see there has been a plateau in temperature since 1998. I don't know whether temperature will resume an upward trend or not, but you only damage your credibility by claiming that temperature has increased over the period. That's the equivalent of Arjay saying on the other side of the argument there's been no global warming(if indeed he said that).