How to argue with a global warming "skeptic"

[quote=“fred smith”][quote]Amazing, all the time posting here, but not enough time to include the source when quoting someone.
[/quote]

Same Economist article that has been posted multiple times.

If you had been “all the time posting here,” you would know this. Anything else stressing you out today? Shall we pull out the blue markers and make sad posters to express our angst?[/quote]

I read this thread a lot, but I don’t post, cause I am not the expert, like you. This quoting without showing the source makes it sometimes difficult to know who you are quoting, well it’s Vay most of the time, but it could be anyone. It’s not that difficult to include the source and takes less time than changing “global warming” to “climate change” all the time.

Fair point. Sometimes I forget that it is not just Vay with his existential rage. Welcome to the party!

Come on, Fred. That’s a cop-out. I don’t have time to hunt and peck through that article to see how it applies to my post. The model predictions vs. current temperature record are right there in my last post… the chart’s not very hard to interpret. Answer my points, or concede you can’t.

Sorry Vay, but it’s not a cop out. Perhaps Fred can’t verbalize it very well. But it boils down to this.

Lets accept the basic premise a doubling of CO2 results in a degree or so of warming. Then the argument becomes how much additional forcing occurs, or if indeed there is any additional forcing. Or if the additional warming doesn’t amplify the warming, rather dampens it. This is not a trivial question. skeptical science addresses it thus wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/t … tics-case/

There are a number of points which must be conceded. The IPCC has revised its predictions and on each occasion it was down from what was previously predicted. Each time as they factor in more externalities, in the case of the second assessment report it was to factor in cooling aerosoles. So when you post a picture from AR5 which was published in 2013, the question people may ask, is this predictions vs observed from the original 1990 predictions, or is it predictions from 5 minutes ago which were modified and have had the goal posts moved?

Personally I am inclined to lean towards the IPCC projections being more accurate than not. I think the current temperature rise is consistent with how current projections are calculated and I am well aware of the fact revisions are part of how the scientific process works. It’s also only been a relatively short time we have had to observe the rise in temperature and compare that to predicted rises, which ever version you choose to compare against.

So here’s the question. We all agree a doubling of CO2 results in a degree or so of warming, the IPCC claims feedback amplification will multiply that by a factor of something like 3.3, whereas the skeptics say evaporation and increased cloud coverage will result in more sunlight being reflected away from earth so the feedback amplification should be more like 0.6. How confident are you that the IPCC is right? !00%? Why? Even the IPCC isn’t 100% confident on just about anything. Want to argue it doesn’t matter, that we can’t wait around until it happens to compare the predictions to observations? You have a point there, but that’s departing from the science, which I suggest you need to make a number of concessions with.

No, i’m not being skeptical for the sake of being skeptical. when I see 5% to 15% I ask myself why is there such a wide discrepancy? A quick google brings up this post, huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/25 … 91140.html

That would be more like under 5%. How did they get 15%? I mean they seem to be able to measure the emissions with great accuracy, 59,100 tonnes in 2011 compared to 62,000 tones in 2007. Where does the 5% to 15% range come from? Digging deeper into the paper here is a table which has 2 studies of CO2 emissions from 2015 and another with data from 2011 with estimates at 8.5% and 9% respectively. Are we to conclude for the period 2011 to 2015 emissions went up and not down? How definitive is the number and I’m still unclear where and how the 15% figure was derived. Other studies in that table have items like a 15% reduction in residential gas demand, but residential and commercial use is only around 11% of the CO2 total emmisions for BC. livesmartbc.ca/learn/emissions.html

Are there political considerations? The paper notes, “strong commitment by BC Premier Gordon Campbell, who essentially staked his political career on passage of the carbon tax” so yes.

Were there other factors prior to 2008 that might affect the numbers? “The number of households in BC has been on a steady rise, climbing 37% between 1990 and 2005. BC Statistics estimated the total households to be just under 1.7 million in 2008” So yes, the number of people moving in or out would affect the numbers. energybc.ca/usage/usage.html

Were there factors after 2008 that might have an impact on the numbers. "It is important to note that consumption of all fuels declined in 2009 in response to the global economic downturn. " So yes.

Is it biased and reflective of a particular viewpoint. I think so, there is a section on "Effect on the BC Economy" it looks to me to downplay the possible negative consequences, instead citing papers which back the view it will have a positive effect on the economy. 

Were the studies cherry picked, were others less favorable omitted? Was the data from the studies themselves cherry picked and is the paper accurately representing their findings? You know, it’s not just the denialists that cherry pick their data sets.

What was peer review of this paper like? sustainableprosperity.ca/publications for example has the paper but no comments. Was it peer review and published at all?

look , I can go on and on, Im sure there are good answers to many of these questions. The point being, if I say I’m skeptical it would be more polite to ask on what grounds do I base such skepticism on. I’m skeptical because the time scale is quite short and it is difficult to really gauge the effect of the tax when other factors like population growth/shrinkage or economic downturns are factored in. I’m skeptical because there is a political aspect that wants to see a study proving the tax a success. I’m also skeptical because as the paper notes, no study has been done on leakage, if for example if 1% of the dirtiest emit 5% overall emissions and they move somewhere else, you can’t turn around and say "woo hoo, we reduced our emissions by 5%, the carbon tax is a success’ all that happened is it moved elsewhere.

Just to add, I’m not saying either that everything in this paper might not be 100% accurate. However, I think any reasonable person can have reasons to be skeptical. I’m all for renewable energy projects, I would also agree with many of the proposals Finley made, I can even see the logic of putting a tax on carbon just to deal with the negative side effects. How effective it will be in reducing carbon use, I am undecided and don’t think there is definitive proof of exactly how effective this measure is.

Hi Mick- thanks for helping interpret Fred’s thoughts again. Not sure if you noticed where I said that I felt, based on Fred’s words, that in the last case, your interpretation was in fact, not his point - or at least not his main one - and thus the point would’ve been better served had you claimed it as your own.

In this case, your interpretation seem a stretch from

Also, I see nothing explaining the hanging issues of:

In what way temperate data is “insufficiently robust”, particularly considering the Curry article Fred posted supported my side of the issue rather than his.

What the criteria for “sufficiently robust”, with regard to either temperature data or climate models, actually is

Most importantly, given that Fred’s argument depends rather heavily on denying the impacts of human-caused climate change and their associated costs- why, exactly, my analogy of my cigarette smoking grandpa was wrong and, more importantly, why rejecting anomalous cases necessitates also rejecting cases typical of observed trends (what Fred calls “having it both ways”)

Point taken and appreciated.

I’ll come back to the other points later, and will try to make sure each is addressed - even if that means simply admitting I’m wrong or don’t know the answer.

What he said. :laughing:

[quote=“Vay”]
In what way temperate data is “insufficiently robust”, particularly considering the Curry article Fred posted supported my side of the issue rather than his.

What the criteria for “sufficiently robust”, with regard to either temperature data or climate models, actually is[/quote]

Sufficiently robust I think would be when the models previously develop match the observed temperatures recorded. The problem being, that might take decades.

Previously we were told natural variation was small by comparison to the AGW, and on that basis previous models were formed. However over the past 17 years, the temperature has more or less plateaued. Which is not an insignificant anomaly if the temperatures start falling outside to the predicted path of the model. So now they tweak the models to include internal volatility, the very thing we were told was of little effect when justifying previous models which justified the IPCC stance that the 1975 to 1998 warming was nearly entirely due to AGW causes. This long period of very little discernible warming was attributed to a number of natural causes, not really factored well into the models such as.

[quote]a decreasing concentration of stratospheric water vapor that slowed the rise in surface temperatures (Solomon et al. 2010),
decadal climate variability (IPCC2013 SPM-10),
uncertainties in the contributions of clouds (IPCC 2013 9-3; McLean 2014),
the effects of other liquid and solid aerosols (IPCC 2013 8-4),
El Niño warming and La Niña cooling in the South Pacific Ocean (de Freitas and McLean, 2013 and references therein; Kosaka and Xie, 2013),
a multidecadal a deep ocean sink for the missing heat (Trenberth and Fasullo, 2013; Chen and Tung, 2014),
the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (Tung and Zhou, 2013),
a multidecadal climate signal with many inputs propagating across the Northern Hemisphere like a stadium wave (Kravtsov et al. 2014),
SO2 aerosols from moderate volcanic eruptions (Neely et al., 2013, Santer et al., 2014),
a decrease in solar activity (Stauning 2014), and
aerosols in pine forests (Ehn et al. 2014).[/quote] judithcurry.com/2014/12/15/will- … te-models/

Another paper notes.

academia.edu/4210419/Can_cli … al_warming

In other words, we don’t know if it’s just due to the lack of inclusion of complex natural variability, there could be factors causing a dampening effect, as some skeptics have suggested related to clouds. Or as it states merely an overestimate of sensitivity.

For what it’s worth, I think the temperature rise is almost entirely due to AGW and am not bothered the IPCC makes revisions, even would say with the limited data they were using didn’t do a particularly bad job right from the start. But that’s my opinion, if someone questions the accuracy of the models, I think its a reasonable question, I certainly wouldn’t make the leap of logic to conclude they were of no use, but that’s just me. Then again, I don’t recall Fred saying they were of no use, only he doubted their accuracy.

Reasonable if this were the first time. It isn’t. At all. Moreover, I quoted exactly what he said this latest time above. Here it is again:

Nowhere near being accurate? Soon irrelevant?

Again, much like with his admitted mockery of me (a problem since addressed by him in a very gentlemanly way, for which I’m genuinely appreciative) which you rationalized into an intelligent point, I think there’s a large discrepancy between your interpretation and what he actually says. So could you maybe drop the proxy position and have this discussion between you and me completely? Otherwise, if you’re going to claim he hasn’t used a cop-out, you’ve got a couple other points on your plate (listed above) that I think you’ll find a big challenge… and one of them is crucial to his argument.

As far as the models, I’m just popping on quickly and will come back to your points about that more, as well as the carbon tax, when I have more time. However in the meantime, I will respond to a couple:

I can’t find a graph with AR5 superimposed on the other projections, but the third and fourth assessments were revised upwards from the second. The red-marked area on the graph we are discussing is AR5’s likely range for average temperatures. I haven’t been able to find the graph yet (in the last few minutes), but as I recall, the range of its projections through 2100 has been increased in both directions… but the likeliest projection comes out about the same as the others. According to RealClimate:

realclimate.org/index.php/ar … te-report/

I’ve posted quite a bit on this before, though frankly I’m just parroting Tamino:

A) Trend-line, to 2000:

B) Trend-line from 2000, projected into the future:

C) The actual data, with trend-line superimposed:

So I don’t find the whole notion of “plateauing temperatures” very compelling. Here’s Anthony Watt’s nightmare, Tamino:

It’s The Trend, Stupid

…and a more technical, less snarky version, from RealClimate:

Recent global warming trends: significant or paused or what?

[quote]But the question the media love to debate is not: can we find a warming trend since 1998 which is outside what might be explained by natural variability? The question being debated is: is the warming since 1998 significantly less than the long-term warming trend? Significant again in the sense that the difference might not just be due to chance, to random variability? And the answer is clear: the 0.116 since 1998 is not significantly different from those 0.175 °C per decade since 1979 in this sense. Just look at the confidence intervals. This difference is well within the range expected from the short-term variability found in that time series. (Of course climatologists are also interested in understanding the physical mechanisms behind this short-term variability in global temperature, and a number of studies, including one by Grant Foster and myself, has shown that it is mostly related to El Niño / Southern Oscillation.) There simply has been no statistically significant slowdown, let alone a “pause”.

There is another more elegant way to show this, and it is called change point analysis (Fig. 4). This analysis was performed for Realclimate by Niamh Cahill of the School of Mathematical Sciences, University College Dublin.[/quote]

Isn’t the whole “rejiggering” of the climate models to factor in the “pause” which you are apparently suggesting doesn’t exist, yet another example of the “well, if that didn’t work, let’s find a study from 10 years ago in which a scientist did predict this series of events?” kind of reactionary always justifying and, er, gasp, cherry picking of data? This El Nino, however, should give you cause for happiness. Again, I think that the historical and written evidence of warmer periods during the Roman and Medieval periods are clear evidence that supports the view that the world is not reaching critical levels of warmthitude that require international bureaucracies with large expense accounts to micromanage. :noway: :noway: :noway:

Anyway, when something actually is going to be done about this URGENT problem that requires our ACTION NOW, let me know. Otherwise, after 35 years of nothing… oh wait! A new climate summit in Paris (never in Ouagadougou are they? :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:), I am going to take a nap… no, not a dirt nap (shameful wishful thinking!!!) but a real one…

Sign me

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…zzzzzzz…xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Gotta love the Spectator…

spectator.co.uk/books/962643 … d-hockney/

[quote]‘Pray don’t talk to me about the weather, Mr Worthing,’ pleads Gwendolen in The Importance of Being Earnest. ‘Whenever people talk to me about the weather, I always feel quite certain that they mean something else. And that makes me quite nervous.’ Weatherland would make Gwendolen very nervous indeed. Our observations of the sky, Alexandra Harris reveals in this extended outlook, have always meant something else.

Weatherland is a literary biography of the climate. Beginning with the Fall (in the Biblical rather than the autumnal sense) and ending with Alice Oswald, Harris condenses 2,000 years of weather ‘as it is recreated in the human imagination’. It is the weather-consciousness of writers, for the most part, that propels the narrative; art takes a back seat until the 17th century, at which point the sky appears in English painting and the purpose of a cloud, as Ruskin said, is no longer to put an angel on it.

Harris presents us with a vast canvas, filled to the edges. No Norman weathercock goes unobserved; we follow the sun as it evolves from a Renaissance symbol of majesty to the chilly light of Claude Lorrain; meteorological discoveries are included throughout. The result is variable: a dry start for some is followed by mainly bright and sunny spells, thickening at times, and culminating with a patch of low-level turbulence. What holds the material together is Harris’s fluent and unfaltering prose; she could be read for style alone.

We can blame Eve for our English summers. Eden’s ambient air made clothes unnecessary but one bite of the apple, according to Paradise Lost, and God unleashed the ‘alterations in the heavens and elements’. Milton, Samuel Johnson drily noted, was super-sensitive to temperature and only wrote at certain times of the year. ‘The author that thinks himself weather-bound,’ Johnson believed, was either ‘idle or exhausted’. Only in old age did the Great Cham admit that weather mattered: ‘I am now reduced to think, and am at last content to talk, of the weather. Pride must have a fall.’

Writing has always been weather-bound. ‘English literature,’ says Harris, ‘begins in the cold.’ Around fires in the mead hall, our Anglo-Saxon ancestors heard the melancholy tale of the Wanderer, an exile on the ‘icy waves’, consumed by ‘wintercearig’, which translates as ‘the cares of winter’. If the sun ever shone over eighth-century England, it was never recorded by a poet; the purpose of storytelling was to control the chaos of outside, to master ‘all that was monstrous in mist and mere’. In the case of Beowulf, Grendel — the creature who prowls the borderlands — ‘is the weather’, born of the crags and hoarfrost.

Spring arrives with the Middle Ages; The Canterbury Tales begins in an April shower. With Shakespeare comes internal weather. When King Lear blows and cracks his cheeks, he is indistinguishable from the storm itself, and Macbeth creates his own ‘fog and filthy air’. Ahead of the scientific spirit of the 18th century, Daniel Defoe appealed for witnesses to report on the effects of the 1703 hurricane, thus initiating what must be the first experiment in Mass Observation.

Charlotte Brontë, who found, as she put it, ‘no fresh air in Jane Austen’, did not look hard enough. Austen’s plots, Harris reminds us, all hinge on weather. Jane Bennet catches cold on a damp day; Elizabeth wears a mud-splattered dress; Marianne Dashwood slips on the wet grass and twists her ankle; Catherine Morland yearns for a stormy night. It is Brontë, Harris notes, who keeps her heroines indoors. ‘There was no possibility of taking a walk today,’ begins Jane Eyre, and so Jane curls up with a copy of Bewick’s birds.

Moving on through the ages, we feel the Wordsworthian breeze, Tennysonian damp, Dickensian fog and the sodden ground of the first world war. The modernist palette is steely grey. Harris is at her best in the early 20th century, particularly on the topic of the sun-seeking D.H. Lawrence who, in Women in Love, had Gerald die, as lonely as the Wanderer, in the ‘bruisingly, frighteningly, unnaturally cold’ Tyrolean Alps.

When she arrives at the later half of the 20th century, Harris becomes as nervous as Gwendolen. Weatherland careers to its conclusion with a melting pot of summaries (The Go-Between, The Cement Garden, Atonement), a collage of artists — Hockney, Hodgkin, Anthony McCall — and a round-up of today’s nature writers. The chaos of the final pages is in tune with the age of climate change: soon there will be no English weather to speak of. In this sense, the forecast is bleak; Harris has provided an exhaustive and exuberant elegy.[/quote]

People are allowed to have differing opinions, interpret data differently or remain skeptical when there is sound reasoning and in this case, and I’ll have to look it up, The observed measurements when compared to what I assume was one of the early models falls below any of the predicted scenarios, and they had a whole range set up. Ok I found one over on skeptical science and again, it’s not just the deniers cherry picking don’t think the warmists aren’t guilty of that as well and downplaying what they don’t like, or did you think the guys at RealClimate were infallible?

IPCC AR5 Figure 1.4. Solid lines and squares represent measured average global surface temperature changes by NASA (blue), NOAA (yellow), and the UK Hadley Centre (green). The colored shading shows the projected range of surface warming in the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR; yellow), Second (SAR; green), Third (TAR; blue), and Fourth (AR4; red).

The first report is shaded yellow, the observed data is clearly outside any predicted range. If you create a model and make sure it works going backwards and then in 20 years time find out the observed data is outside the predicted range, the model is wrong. There have been so many changes, they might have coloured half the page, The fourth doesn’t look to hot either, with observed on the bottom of most predicted models.

You brush aside questions related to the past 17 years. I can look at the picture and see the change in gradient with my own eyes. I can observe the difference, and people who are curious or have a scientific mind will want to know why. drawing a line to suggest it doesn’t exist is what the denialists to when they cherry pick a start point. It can be argued it is not statistically significant, never the less it is curious, and I would suggest someone who is not curious is perhaps driven by an agenda or position they want validated.

It seems you wont drop the issue of why I wasn’t temping or flaming Freds remarks, so here’s why. Yes I knew most likely it was an attempt to get under your skin, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Because he brought up your lifestyle, you think automatically constitutes an ad hominem attack. There is one exception for ad hominem attacks which is.

[quote]Non-fallacious ad hominem reasoning

When an ad hominem argument is made against a statement, it is important to draw a distinction whether the statement in question was an argument or a statement of fact (testimony). In the latter case the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial.[8]

Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[11] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject’s words.

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism[/quote]

If as I explained earlier Freds goal (which I seriously doubt, but like I say I like to give the benefit of the doubt) was to illustrate the difficulty of nations adhering to CO2 emission decreases by pointing out how difficult it is for all of us, and in his case he chose you, even when you are fully convinced that AGW is real , it's a problem and something we should do about it. It's not entirely a fallacious argument. 

Now the reason I didn't address this despite you repeatedly demanding an explanation is this. First, yes i did read all your repeated postings on how unfair it was for me not to have acted more strongly and yes I read where you posted Fred admitted it. I don't think it matters what I say, I think you are going to argue about it, I dont think anything I say will convince you I may have a point, or that I don't want to be chopping and cutting a thread 10 times a day because you have to engage Fred until he submits to your will, instead of putting him on ignore or avoiding his posts, instead you expect me to keep him in line just the way you like so you can lecture him.

But, as you quite rightly suspected, mostly (not entirely) to laugh at our resident moralist for his moral failings on exactly the moral issue where he likes to wave his moral finger most.***

That said, if the debate is no longer fun and becomes a source of marital discord, then I am willing to reform my flippant ways. That is my main motivation, not because I feel that I have infringed upon any of the august and sacrosanct principles that govern the online exchanges of this forum.

***I am, by the way, most pleased with the pleasing poetry of this verbal construct, please examine the pleasing rhythm if it pleases you.

I take full credit for Fred’s metamorphosis into a sweet, tender, thoughtful and insightful global warming skeptic.
It was I that showered him with love while you had all turned your backs on him

Course they are. I never said otherwise. What I object to you is you, again, stepping in and telling me, for him, that his posting of that article wasn’t a cop-out. First: Because what you said, and what he said, are clearly different. Second: Because you skipped a bunch of the points in the alleged cop-out in attempting to be his proxy.

Yes, the chart shows what I said and refutes what you said. The SAR predictions are lower than those of the TAR and AR4; hence, it cannot be claimed that the IPCC keeps lowering its predictions.

I suggest you read his article, then, for starters.

Course not. Nevertheless, I suggest you note who exactly the author of the RealClimate article is. Hint: he aint some blogger with too much time. And read some more of the article. He gives explicit reasons why just using your gut probably aint the thing to do here.

My problem wasn’t that you weren’t temping or flaming his remarks. It was that, given that he had explicitly said he was mocking me, you jumped in and rationalized his point for him! Giving someone latitude is one thing, but that… seriously.

Um, here’s his exact quote:

That was RIGHT before you jumped in and started interpreting before him. That was what pissed me off. His intention couldn’t have been clearer.

[quote]Non-fallacious ad hominem reasoning
When an ad hominem argument is made against a statement, it is important to draw a distinction whether the statement in question was an argument or a statement of fact (testimony). In the latter case the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial.[8]

Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[11] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject’s words.

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism[/quote]

If only I’d been giving testimony, I’d see where that were relevant.

Well, I see you’ve made up your mind. Personally, it seems to me if you actually paid attention to what he and I really said and reacted to what my complaint actually is, that would be a great help.

[quote=“Vay”]
Course they are. I never said otherwise. What I object to you is you, again, stepping in and telling me, for him, that his posting of that article wasn’t a cop-out. First: Because what you said, and what he said, are clearly different. Second: Because you skipped a bunch of the points in the alleged cop-out in attempting to be his proxy.[/quote]

I never wanted to be in this debate in the first place, the reason I am is because you refuse to see any viewpoint that might cast doubt on the official IPCC report as heresy. I am not even arguing a view point I support. Because you and Fred have been going at each other for so long on these forums I decided to try and act as a buffer.

Fred has acted appropriately and in the spirit of good will has said he will not antagonize you, How about you vay, are you going to let it go, or is every other post going to be about something that happened 30 pages ago, a mod decision that didn’t go your way, why did i stick up for Fred when you said he copped out? Or stick to the facts we are discussing, preferably with consideration rather than snide comments that are likely to illicit a less than favorable response?

I think that claim requires evidence.

Yes, I totally agree he has stepped up… quite graciously. I have stated that twice now, at least. I’m grateful. I’ve also apologized to you for getting pissy the last time you decided to interpret for him… until you did it again. I made an effort to agree where I’d been rightfully chided by you and to acknowledge points I’d been wrong on.

So that’s two of us who have stepped up.

You see I had been placed under a curse. The curse was that, despite being a civilized being and a fully paid up member of the bien pensant, I had to pretend to be a global warming (SORRY!!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!!) skeptic. Only when someone could see through all of this to the true beauty of my being would I finally be released to become the enlightened global warming (SORRY!!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!!) fearing advocate that I am. That is why, now that I have been freed from this evil spell, that I would like to call upon one and all to

ACT URGENTLY NOW!!! BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!

Thank God you rescued me from this horrible hex… Now, I can rest easily knowing that I have done my bit to RAISE AWARENESS of this URGENT ISSUE!!!

My gratitude knows NO bounds!!!

THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART!!!

I think that claim requires evidence.

[/quote]

Why would you ignore a 17 year obvious departure in trajectory, is it not at least a little curious to you. Do you think the people at realclimate would have said it was statistically irreverent if the curve had bent upwards instead of flattening out? It doesnt fit with the IPCC crowd well, but does fit what skeptical scientists like Richard Lindzen have been saying,i.e as temperature increases there are damping factors like clouds that invalidate IPCC model claims which it is suggested are too simplistic.

But I did so first nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nah nah :discodance: :discodance: :discodance:

Oh wait! :blush: :blush: :blush:

Sorry! Forgot about the gracious part!!! :doh: :doh: :doh:

Are we now having fun or are you still taking this seriously?

:discodance: :discodance: :discodance: