Poirot pointed to an article in RealClimate purporting to support her claims about deep ocean temps. Linking to RC to prove AGW is like linking to the Bible to prove God but let's let that pass.

I don't know whether Poirot read the article or just the headline, but it doesn't contain any actual data. It talks at length about climate models and how they predict deep ocean warming, but there isn't a passing semblance of empirical data supporting that. Yet alarmists are now happy to assert that the case is proven.

We've seen this several times before. We were told that sea surface temps were rising as predicted by the models and this was used as a proof of the theory by warmists. then real scientists did actual studies and found the contrary. And we were told that sea level rises were accelerating and this was used as proof. Then real scientists did actual studies and found the contrary.

To be fair to some of the alarmist scientists this is partly a timing issue. It is quite likely that sea levels were rising very rapidly for a short time and have since settled down to their millenial average. But the problem is that the activist alarmists use these short term blips to extrapolate long term trends. And when they are proven wrong they just move on to the next big thing.

In a few years time we'll look back at the Arctic sea ice melt scare in the same way.

mhaze,

Er hem....temperatures have been "playing" very "nice" indeed, don't you know.....http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Deep-Ocean-Warms-When-Global-Surface-Temperatures-Stall--.html

Unless you're a "skeptic" who doesn't want to know.

Hows about we invite you, mhaze, to list the things that would convince you that your denialism is misplaced?

(Warning! - this will include actual science:)

"...is like linking to the Bible to prove God but let's let that pass."

Let's not let that pass, mhaze. Otherwise you'd miss out on this morning's RJ (religious jargon) award.

Congrats on that!

mhaze, you say that there isn't any "real data" to show that ocean temps are warming. Then, what do you call the data presented in:

World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0-2000 m), 1955-2010
Levitus, S.; Antonov, J. I.; Boyer, T. P.; et al.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS Volume: 39 Article Number: L10603 DOI: 10.1029/2012GL051106 Published: MAY 17 2012

Chopped liver?

Mate, you can dismiss any datasets you like, and pick the ones you do, but it doesn't change reality.

Your historical narrative is certainly one shared by your compatriots, but not one shared by climate scientists. Conspiracy theorists also like to rewrite history picking out little 'factoids' to weave into their fictional narratives. I have noticed many parallels with the 'skeptics' and conspiracy theorists, indeed large overlaps as well.

It's funny, but many features are also shared with creationists, surprisingly enough. In their world evolution is also a conspiracy of scientists and dissent is unfairly squashed, Ben Stein made a movie about it. They also think that they are defending 'true science'. I was once told quite few years ago that the ID (Intelligent Design) train was picking up steam and I should get aboard or get run over! It's hilarious. Announcements on ones personal (political) views taking over rarely eventuate. Please be prepared for that.

On the subject of "skeptics" and conspiracy theory - this cartoon sums up the "climate" of debate fairly well : )

http://skepticalscience.com/2013-SkS-Weekly-Digest_9.html

warmair.
I'm afraid you've misunderstood the nature of the data. Yes,the "Foster and Rahmstorf " data is adjusted but so is the other data I mentioned. Almost all data you see these days is adjusted..not raw. Indeed it can be hard to get the original raw figures. So Hadcrut, Giss and the rest are adjusted data. Foster and Rahmstorf is just another form of adjustment which gives answers you prefer.

"When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors..." etc etc. So they are just estimating the natural factors and then saying let's pretend they don't exist. Using this methodology we can prove Coke is a health food...if we ignore the sugar, colours flavours etc.

Poirot and Bugsy,
re the depp ocean temps. I agree that there are quite a few studies which purport to show that temps are rising. But if you check the actual study rather than the headline, you find that most of the data is actually from models, not from direct measurement. ie they create a model of what they think is or will happen and then use that as though its actual measurements. Now I know there is a fundamental disagreemnet on this with warmists thinking models are indeed data and most sceptics (me included) think models are only of value when verified. To draw a recent comparison, Wayne Swann has spent the last 3yrs claiming that we will have a surplus based on models. It was only when the real data came in that we found the truth.

/cont