From the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report 2013 Summary for Policy Makers
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

D.1 Evaluation of Climate Models -

"The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012). {9.4, Box 9.2}"

The differences between simulated (projected) and the observed (empirical) trend for 1998 - 2012 was no increase. Later in the Summary this period is referred to as an anomaly. The so called anomaly continues and the fact still remains, over all the global warming came to a halt in 1998.

Dear Shadow Minister,

How on earth can I have a serious discussion when
you simply dub Dr Ryota Kanai's paper as "dubious."
On what is your knowledge based compared to his?
Dr Ryota Kanai is a Cognitive Neuroscientist of the
University College London and he has had many papers
published in scientific journals - including the one
cited in "Current Biology," which you called "dubious."
"Current Biology," publishes peer-reviewed articles
reporting findings of unusual significance across all
areas of biology that aim to inform.

The following links may help you:

http://2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004818

http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/04/11/liberal-conservative-related-to-different-brain-structures/25184.html

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/09/07/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation

otb,

Rebuking you is not rebuking science.
The "Go Away!" was directed at you.
Nobody else.

I told you to "go away," simply because
as I've told you in the past (over and
over again), you see the world in very
rigid and stereotyped terms. Your concepts
are too vague and sweeping in their scope.
And you are psychologically prone to prejudiced
thinking (and personal attacks). Me,
especially. Me, especially. You put in the boot
every chance you get. If you could you'd bite
me with your bum. So, why on earth would
I want to inter-act with you or respect your
opinions. You're a mean-little-man.
And "Go Away!" still applies!

SM,

".... For you to then state that The Economist is going to risk its reputation on an unrelated whitewash of BL's book is complete horse crap."

I stated no such thing. I merely pointed out that you posting a quote praising Lomborg by The Economist was no biggie, considering they backed his venture.

(Simples - keep yer wig on)

"A Response to Lomborg's Rebuttal"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-response-to-lomborgs-re/

"Many critics of Bjorn Lomborg's book refer to Mark Twain's comment about "lies, damn lies and statistics," but I am more reminded of H. L. Mencken's remark, "For every problem, there is a neat, simple solution, and it is always wrong." The story of The Skeptical Environmentalist is one of a political scientist who wades into the vastly complex, unsettled literature of environmental science, scrutinizes a fraction of what is to be found there, and emerges confident that the simple summary he has developed is a fair and accurate representation of the science, notwithstanding the warnings of experts in the disciplines he skims that he is mistaken."

Read on....quite a comprehensive critique.

"Every now and again you set yourself up for a good hiding when you don't check your facts."

Save it, SM - that is your standard OLO response when you're not making headway in debate.

So when's this "hiding" supposed to get underway?

Fox,

Once again, correlation is not causation.

Your ad hominem attack does not change that critical flaw in your earlier post, which coincidentally was also an ad hominem attack on those who disagreed with you.

BTT

Hi Foxy,

Thanks for that link, it was very easy to find the following article, using 'political brain' as keywords. Possibly some posters were thinking of their own brains, and typing in the keyword 'marshmallow'.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/30/study-political-parties-are-all-in-your-head-literally/

A little from the article;

"Researchers from the University College London have learned that people with conservative political views generally have larger amygdalas, which are centers of the brain that determine fear and emotion. They also typically have a smaller anterior cingulate, which is associated with courage and optimism."

Is there other research which also shows people with larger amygdalas, have great difficulty using their computer keyboard. We have several forumites with extremely large amygdalas and very small anterior cingulate on this very thread. Judging by the dribble they post most of the time, I would suspect that their amygdalas are so large they have to carry it around in a box, and their anterior cingulates are non existent.