Struth Sr, you really are the sly one, n'est pas?

You make an assertion that is patently wrong. (that average temperatures were somehow different to Annual Temperature Mean Anomalies)

I point out, in passing, that its patently wrong.

You then seek to correct your patently wrong error by diverting into another realm and demand to know why I won't follow you down that rabbit hole.

I wasn't commenting on the original article from Josephus and its validity one way or t'other. For the record, I'd withhold a decision on it until I see or analyse the raw data. But your criticism of it was in turn invalid in that you didn't understand that graphing anomalies isn't really different to graphing the original data.

But I accept that you'll continue to muddy the water so as to convince someone (mainly yourself) that you weren't in error...again.

Related: previously you were gung-ho for peer-reviewed evidence that the models have failed, at least until I provided peer-reviewed evidence and pointed out, rather inconveniently, that your own evidence wasn't peer reviewed. So here is yet another peer reviewed paper that takes the models apart....http://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

I look forward to seeing which device you use to ignore this evidence.

Dear NNS,

Well it would take more time than I have to go through each and every reference you have provided so here is the deal, I will deal with the first one and then will ask you to pick another which you hold in the highest regard and we can assess it next.

To the first paper;

“A 2011 Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science study using observational data rather than computer climate models concluded that "the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity" and overestimate how fast the earth will warm as CO2 levels increase.”

{comment found in abstract, introduction and conclusion of the paper. PDF of paper can be found at
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf }

This was the second crack at this by Lindzen and Choi. The first in 2009 was widely derided because it was so sloppy and even “Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html

This paper was first submitted to the relatively prestigious group Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It was assessed by four reviewers two of whom were selected by Lindzen himself.

Here are the conclusions of the reviewers;

http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Attach3.pdf

You will see not a single one of them felt the paper was of “suitable quality” or that its “conclusions were justified”.

Lindzen then withdrew the paper and ultimately had in published in the relatively obscure Korean journal you listed above.

I am going to take the assessment of the reviewers as fair and therefore decline to place any weight in the arguments it presents. Unless of course you can give me a good reason to change my mind.

In my experience this is pretty usual fare from the denier's camp and I'm not inclined to keep doing this for every reference so chose your best and I will have a look.

To SteeleRedux.

Do whatever you want man. If this is a waste of time for you, then you can leave as well. All I did is point out that your rebutted for argument #10 was lacking quite a bit. It was your offer to look at any one of the con arguments for the pro/con article. I gave you three to choose from to choose which one you wanted to look at. You refused to choose and told me I was not doing as you asked. So I chose for you. From that section of points, I choose argument #10. That the global warming models are crap. Instead of looking at the full argument you stop short on the first reference and call it good. Then ask if there's any more that I can offer. So I fill in the rest of argument #10, because there was more there to offer. The references with an online source to look up, and and brief summation of the references that are given. As well as the argument itself for the context of the references.

I've done all the work for you, and still it's too much trouble for you. From here on out it's up to you what you want to do. No new deal, no revised responsibilities for me to fill. I've done my due diligence. If you don't want to do any more into this point of the discussion. That's your call. If you want to do more on one point or another, fine that's your call as well. Choose whatever you will do. Whatever it will be it sounds like it is lacking the effort I've already put in, and thus lacking any reason for me to honor a reply back.

Dear NNS,

Well mate let's break down your little tanty shall we.

Firstly I didn't 'refuse' anything.

Me: “if there was ONE of the arguments on the 'con' side that you deem to be top of your list I will undertake to step through it with you.”

You: “Take on arguments 7, 8, or 10 of the con side of those arguments. Answers to any one of those arguments or why those arguments don't matter (careful that also could mean the pro's side of counter arguments on the same points also don't matter).”

Note: Answers in the plural intimated you wanted answers to them all. Perhaps this was not your intention but that is certainly how it seemed to me.

Me: “I'm going to request you pick the ONE you feel is the most prominent of them and we will discuss it and see if it is worth tackling the others. I was just going to select one myself but I didn't want to be accused of cherry picking.”

You: “Go with con argument #10.”

Well I looked at the primary supporting statement's reference and found it didn't exist.

You: “... the rest of the points in con argument 10 has article references that all agree to the computer models being wrong and over exaggerated.”

You then went and gave a precis for the points, it should be noted without me asking for such.

Having dispensed pretty thoroughly with the next on the list I asked for your pick of the rest which I thought was perfectly reasonable.

You then cracked the sads.

Why am I being portrayed by you as unreasonable?

You also claimed; “I've done all the work for you...”

No you haven't. Neat little summaries don't contribute much at all. The work is in properly investigating the provenance and veracity of papers which I have done.

It's Not Easy Being A Climateer
I really don't care much how difficult they make it for themselves ! Besides, do we need them ?
The big companies will not curb the pollution they cause anyway because the Climateers want all the commodities & comfort of modern living standards. And, so the industrialists will continue to oblige !

Being a complete dumb-arse on this topic, I would love someone to correct me if my figures are wrong:

* that average annual world temperatures have risen by about half a degree in the last eighty years, some of which is due to increases in CO2 emissions, not just the urban heat-island effect or sun-spots or orbital oscillations;

* That sea-levels have risen by an inch (2.5 cm) in the last century, taking into account continental uplift, tilting of tectonic plates, post-Ice-Age re-bound, etc.

Should I get hysterically active about the greenhouse effect, or just giggle derisively ?

Or maybe nobody knows ?

Joe