spindoc,

I'm not exactly sure what the point of all that was...but when all is said and done, neither of us is likely to agree.

"Poirot, you asked for a bit of humor. I am truly sorry but I no longer find anything funny in dealing with alarmists. You listen to nothing challenging, you borrow only opinion from those who feed your alarmism and you reject anything that remotely conflicts with your adopted ideology. That’s not funny, but is it truly alarming."

Yup...I tend to get my info from people qualified in the field - not their "opinion", but their evaluation of their data. Just as in the same way that my mum recently took note of the evaluation of the data from her "heart specialist" - and not her local bus driver.

You also might like to reflect on the fact that you reject anything that remotely conflicts with "your" adopted ideology - except you're more likely to take your cues from people who don't have any climate expertise and who misrepresent the information available from those who do.

So be it.

Cheerio

Ah, Madam Poirot,

Indeed you know exactly what my post was all about, it was about you being shown to be totally wrong, as evidenced by the IPCC.

As always, you divert to a Unicorn, like your mother, her heart condition and a bus driver. You divert from the fact that it was not about my opinion, but about the fact that the IPCC totally disagrees with you. You divert by failing to acknowledge your own lack of scientific qualifications and the fact that you don't actually have the foggiest idea what MMGW is about or what The IPCC has to say about it. Not a lot going for you really, just another ideological smarty pants.

When you can acknowledge that you were completely wrong, as determined by the IPCC, then you will reconcile your self hatred with your nonsense on OLO.

We are well tuned to your reluctance to admit you were wrong, and your inability to engage in the content of debate.

Hypocrisy is not a good look under any circumstances, but In your case you have taken it to a new level.

Tell me where the IPCC is wrong about you and OLO readers may begin to cut you some slack.

My regards to your Mum and her heart condition, you might also ask her where she might have gone wrong in conditioning your distorted values and self loathing?

It is noted that you focused only on the last paragraph about humour, but totally ignored all the contrary evidence from the IPCC, your purported skills in statistical significance, the latest satellite data, the IPCC's capitulation and your superior scientific education compared with the IPCC.

Your parting comment about only getting your information from those qualified is an absolute beauty. The IPCC, with whom you passionately but selectively agree/disagree, was until recently run by former railway engineer Rajendra Pachauri, who lead a team that had not one single scientist on his IPCC committee?

Bus driver meets railway engineer?

You have degenerated into an utter joke, thrashing for relevance, conflicted and transparently lacking self awareness. A typical progressive really.

spindoc,

"You have degenerated into an utter joke, thrashing for relevance, conflicted and transparently lacking self awareness. A typical progressive really."

Lol!....should've known better than to agree to disagree with good old spinny - and he fell over himself to put the boot in one last time.

spindoc has shown himself to be utterly barren on this subject - his only talent is to "spin" and "misrepresent" - while simultaneously riding a unicyle and juggling his aunty's tea set - all the whie shouting "THE IPCC SAID SO".

"....The IPCC, with whom you passionately but selectively agree/disagree, was until recently run by former railway engineer Rajendra Pachauri, who lead a team that had not one single scientist on his IPCC committee?"

Lol! - yes I believe that all those physicists and sciency types who submitted the bulk of the substance of AR5 were subsequently revealed to be florists.

Strange old world, eh?

We'd do much better to get our climate science from the likes of Lord Monckton who at least has a degree in Classical Architecture.

"My regards to your Mum and her heart condition, you might also ask her where she might have gone wrong in conditioning your distorted values and self loathing?"

There we have it....wonderful stuff!

spindoc the vacuous, who's only recourse (in lieu of actual substance) is to resort to ad hom.

Morning Spindoc

First lets us look at the complete quote from AR5 that you referred to previously.
It comes from the IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report pages 2 and 3.

“In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, the globally averaged surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (Figure SPM.1a). Due to this natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade). {1.1.1, Box 1.1}”

In other works cherry picking proves nothing.
The important words are :-
"Due to this natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends"

Now note that the end date is 2012 if you take it up to the present i.e. 2014 you find that a positive trend exist no matter what starting date you pick between 1990 and 2000 . In other words there is no hiatus if you choose a long enough period.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/3/1880-2015

The short term difference in global surface temperatures between years is related to whether the year is la Nina, El Nino or just neutral.


http://americablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/El-Nino_chart_thru-2012_800px-Enso-global-temp-anomalies-688x500.png

‘morning warmie,

Well, it’s about time one of you stepped up to help Poirot out of the hole she dug for herself?

It might have been prudent to read my previous double post as that is what we are discussing. Instead you have not only missed the key issues, you have failed to respond to them. So to assist you I’ll cover them again.

It is pointless to keep quoting stuff from the IPCC’s AR5 report and miscellaneous links that are already contradicted by the IPCC themselves.

A 15 year hiatus;

The AR5 WG1 science report states, that there has been “a 15 year ‘hiatus’ in global warming”.

So all you have to do is acknowledge what the IPCC says and to explain, in your own words, what you think is meant by Hiatus, Pause, Lack of Warming, No warming, an Anomaly and what is meant by “statistical significance”?

“The statistical significance of warming from 1994-2009 was 95%";

Can you please explain how this statement of 95% certainty can possibly be true if the IPCC has acknowledged this “hiatus” which pre-dates and overlaps the 95% certainty by ten years? IMHO, their own “95% statistically proven probability” has been trashed by the IPCC. But you might tell us differently?

“In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, the globally averaged surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and inter-annual variability (Figure SPM.1a). Due to this natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends”;

Can you please explain the validity of this statement given that the IPCC cannot factor in natural variability because they admit “that their inability to predict this ‘natural variability’ and the resulting ‘hiatus’ is due to the failure or unreliability of climate models”.

Read it again warmie, “due to the failure or unreliability of the IPCC’s climate models”!

Three very simple points warmie. A 15 year hiatus? Statistical significance? And the validity of any IPCC statements on “natural variability” that they cannot and have not factored because their models don’t work?

We are killing the earth. It won't last much longer.