I've noticed one of Max's techniques is to throw out assertions in the hope that they're right or even arguable and then to just drop it when he finds out otherwise.

He tells me to pay attention to the IPCC's 95% confidence interval. I ask which one. He says that's a daft question. I then point out there are 100s of such 95 % confidence intervals.....CRICKETS

He's says the models are always right. I point out that that can't be true when they disagree internally....CRICKETS

I say I think the TCR is closer to 1c. He says I have no evidence for that and then that he doesn't know what it means (so how did he know I had no evidence?). I show him the evidence....CRICKETS

He says I cherry-picked 1998 as the start of the pause. I point out that not only didn't I do that, I deliberately avoided that date.....CRICKETS

I ask for evidence that the Physics community uses his daft 4 Hiroshima equivalence as a unit of measure...CRICKETS

I'm expecting to hear a lot of crickets over the next while, until Max again beats a retreat.

MHAZE, you're not the only person in this thread. It took 2 posts to answer your last strawman attacks and I had other people to discuss things with. You're really not the centre of my world. Also, you don't get to monopolise my time by throwing out a dozen silly red-herrings for me to chase while not conceding the answers put back to you! Stop playing silly word games around subjects, and answer the questions!

You've failed to give an adequate response as to why you repeatedly asserted you only want to study temperature graphs in a particular 15-year range. ;-) Rather than avoid this, I linked to databases that cover this period.

You've failed to explain why you don't trust those temperature charts because you prefer ones "without the recent 'homogenisation'" and yet "its a standard term in the science". ;-) You can claim I went into "moral-panic" over the word, but you're the one preferring temperature charts *without* homogenisation. You avoid explaining why? ;-)

You've failed to explain why you brought up the early 20th Century, and why the science shows some CO2 related warming, but not much compared to today! ;-) Again, I linked to databases that cover this period. You've failed to explain why the top 4 temperature databases on the planet all say the same thing, and why seasonal and biological evidence from the real world also confirm the planet is cooking. ;-)

You've failed to understand that 4 Hiroshima bombs per second is a GREAT way to explain 3 extra Christmas light per square meter of the earth. Sure it's a dramatic image and not the scientific measure, but I'm not a scientist and this is a lay person's forum. It's appropriate, and rather catchy! I know that rankles you because you hate all this stuff, but, well, that's your problem. But here is a good brief for newcomers who want the correct terms. Also, this link says you got the measure wrong. It’s 0.8 watts / sqm, but denier’s gotta deny! ;-)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance

"You've failed to give an adequate response as to why you repeatedly asserted you only want to study temperature graphs in a particular 15-year range."

Nup. I've explained before. You claimed "But our CO2 and methane ARE the dominant forcings we are aware of on our planet" and that 15yr or so period was one example where that claim was wrong.

"You've failed to explain why you don't trust those temperature charts"

I never said any such thing. I simply suggested that you look at the pre-1940 data to show that your CO2 claims were wrong and that unhomogenised data from that time would show it better. I also said "you can find the data in both the homogenised and unhomogenised sets". But then you'd be forced to address the main point, and you'd really prefer to avoid that, n'est pas?

"You've failed to explain why you brought up the early 20th Century"

Nup. I've explained it many times. It was to show that your claims about CO2 were wrong.

"You've failed to explain why the top 4 temperature databases on the planet all say the same thing, and why seasonal and biological evidence from the real world also confirm the planet is cooking."

See now you're just making stuff up. I've not talked at all about the databases and most certainly haven't disputed that the planet is warming. Its always a dead give-away when people start making stuff up.

"You've failed to understand that 4 Hiroshima bombs per second is a GREAT way to explain..."

You say explain. I say propagandise. Let's call the whole thing off.

"Also, this link says you got the measure wrong. It’s 0.8 watts / sqm, but denier’s gotta deny!"

Nup. The link says that the number is hard to measure. But the people who created the Hiroshima meme used 0.6 watts so I went with that. Had I not done so, I suspect we'd be having a long discussion about why I falsified their number.

My last post asked a question, it presented a list [only part of one] of who may suffer when we take action to TRY to stop man made climate change
It got no answer
But it did get mhaze showing he needs no science or real evidence, to sustain his augment
Those in the tobacco industry who ran for so long such a fraudulent campaign in defense of killing their customers, take a bow
You works lead the way for today's deniers

Dear Max Green,

Please do not waste your time disputing AGW with the $1 brains. There are too many important aspects to AGW and climate change that are worthwhile discussing. Have you read any of those books by Brian Fagan that I mentioned earlier?

MR OPINION,
you seem to be reading on climate more recently than I have been (at least in any depth). What are your most serious concerns and potential geopolitical flashpoints if we don't reduce our various greenhouse gas emissions?