Ah, but, Joe, the point is that you are not an idiot...an idiot who bothered to inhabit a forum like this would probably attempt to imbibe some of the information that he was given.

On the contrary, it's fairly obvious that your habit of referring to yourself in the inferior vernacular - as an "idiot" is your way of expressing just how clever you think you are. You're a non-scientist who can't be bothered (no matter how many disingenuous questions you throw out there) to take any direction from those with knowledge who reply to you.

Mostly your inquiries reek of insincerity...you're not really inquiring about the so-called 15 years of whatever....what you're doing is stating your concrete opinion, before going on to ignore any additional information you are provided.

Here's a little more for you to ignore:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/short-term-trends-another-proxy-fight/

Thanks Poirot,

I looked at that graph you URLd, and for all the hype about temperature rise since 1975, there didn't seem to be much rise between about 2000 and the present. Zilch. Your pretty little lilac line was flat - am I right or not ?

So has there been world temperature rise since about 1997-2000 or not ? Yes ? No ?

If not, even though CO2 emissions have risen in that time by around 40 % - and have doubled since mid-C20, temperatures have not risen over the past 15 or so years. True ? False ? They should be rising at increasing rates by now - true ? false ?

Capitalism has always been pretty good at manufacturing crises, Poirot. Is this another one of those, from which capitalist firms of all sorts are eager to make big bucks from gullible governments and more gullible environmentalists and assorted Armageddonists.

Tell me it isn't so ! But please, no more snide non-rebuttals.

Cheers,

Joe

:

Loudmouth,

"But please, no more snide rebuttals."

I think you can drop the delicate flower persona...coming from the king of sarcasm and disingenuous cherry-picked repetitive inquiry - it's all a bit rich.

Did you read this bit? (It's above the first set of "pretty lines :)

"The ten years to August 2012 were warmer than the previous ten years by 0.15C, which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17c, which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17c, and which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17c..."

But don't let me interrupt your conspiracy theory....loads of fun, I'm sure.

'Non-rebuttal', Poirot. Nice try.

So you're saying that average world temperatures rose by 0.525 degrees C in the last fifteen years ? Is that so ? Or is it that the model predicted that they would rise by about that much and therefore, on average, over the past fifty years, they 'did' ?

So whoever claims that temperatures haven't risen in the last fifteen years (as your pretty little lilac line shows) is a liar ?

This attempt to boost neo-capitalism is wearing a bit thin. See you later.

Cheers,

Joe

:)

Loudmouth,
Which part of http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html do you not understand?
Your retort, back to political ideology speaks volumes.
No seeing you later.

:)

Actually it is a "rebuttal" : )

Here you go, Loudmouth.

I revisited John Cook's article on The Conversation titled "How do people reject climate science?"

His first point, I found to be oddly reminiscent of your favourite tactic.

As in:

"The most common manifestation of confirmation bias is cherry picking, where one carefully selects a small piece of data that paints a friendly picture and overlooks any inconvenient evidence.

How do we spot cherry picking? It's important to remember that there is no "their evidence" versus "our evidence". There is only the full body of evidence.

If someone arrives at a conclusion from carefully selected evidence that contradicts the conclusion drawn from the full body of evidence, that's cherry picking.

Cherry pickers ignore the fact that our planet is currently building up heat at the stunning rate of around 3 Hiroshima bombs per second. Instead they focus on short periods of the surface temperature record. This record bounces up and down from year to year as the ocean exchanges heat with the atmosphere, meaning that it's possible to find any short period during the long-term warming trend where temperatures fall briefly."

http://theconversation.edu.au/how-do-people-reject-climate-science-9065

(One could think he wrote this piece specifically in response to your participation on this thread - uncanny, I say :)

Here's another peek at the escalator:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47