A doubly whammy this week as Gaia author Lovelock rails against windfarms and environmentalists, and climate sensitivity has been scaled back. From Dr. Benny Peiser at The GWPF:
Global warming is likely to be less extreme than claimed, researchers said yesterday. The most likely temperature rise will be 1.9C (3.4F) compared with the 3.5C predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Norwegian study says earlier predictions were based on rapid warming in the Nineties. But Oslo University’s department of geosciences included data since 2000 when temperature rises “levelled off nearly completely”. –John Ingham, Daily Express, 26 January 2013
The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the Nineties. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity. We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming. —-Professor Terje Berntsen, University of Oslo, 24 January 2013
These results are truly sensational. If confirmed by other studies, this could have far-reaching impacts on efforts to achieve the political targets for climate. –Caroline Leck, Stockholm University, 25 January 2013
This research confirms what we have been saying all along. The global warming standstill of the last 16 years is having a dramatic effect on climate models and predictions. The Met Office should now reassess its own, flawed computer models and tone down the alarmist pronouncements which are no longer trustworthy. –The Global Warming Policy Foundation, Daily Express, 26 January 2013
Even the previous IPCC imminent doom scenario completely failed to produce any serious action. With the recent gradual scientific acceptance – even among scientists who have spent their whole lives studying the subject – that global warming is simply much less significant than had been thought, the chance of anyone caring enough to take action is now even lower. — Lewis Page, The Register, 25 January 2013
I am James Lovelock, scientist and author, known as the originator of Gaia theory, a view of the Earth that sees it as a self-regulating entity that keeps the surface environment always fit for life… I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood and misapplied. We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. We need take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilisation. – Bishop Hill, James Lovelock, 12 December 2012 (in a letter noted by Phillip Bratby)
===============================================================
Related articles
- Team of Ex-NASA Scientists Concludes No Imminent Threat from Man-Made CO2 (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Yet another study shows lower climate sensitivity (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Environmental backpedalling picks up pace (dailymaverick.co.za)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pardon me. The author of the paper is Indur M Goklany, not Bolkany.
Shehan says:
“Keeping it simple for the slow learners.”
Of course, it is Shehan who is the slow learner. As I have repeatedly stated, my only concern is that Shehan is publicly lying about accelerating global warming, which is certainly not occurring. All the peripheral isues raised by Shehan are intended to steer the debate away from his “accelerating global warming” dishonesty. I do not care about those side issues. As long as Shehan continues to lie about global warming ‘accelerating’, I will post scientific evidence showing that it isn’t true.
It does not concern me why Shehan is lying. Liars lie; that’s what they do. My only concern is that he is lying when he says that global warming is accelerating.
Global warming is natural — not man-made — and it has been decelerating [the declining green trend line]. Furthermore, for the past decade, global warming has stopped. Even James Hansen now acknowledges that scientific fact.
Stealey is amazing. He accuses me of lying about the temperature record then produces a doctored graph to disguise the truth.
I noted his tactic with this one in my January 28 2:20 pm post:
http://tinyurl.com/bkoy8or
He is at it again, camouflaging the truth with this one using the same tactic – adding completely meaningless lines to compress the data, effectively forcing people to squint at the temperature data through a demagnifying glass.
http://tinyurl.com/ch49ytb
He takes temperature hadcrut3 temperature data and descales it by a factor of 100,000 and offsets it by 1.5 and -1.5. What possible justification is there for this? There is none. It just squashes the temperature data in the vertical axis.
Here is what happens when you remove these spurious lines.
http://tinyurl.com/be3kjlj
He also introduces two detrend into the temperature data lines for no justifiable reasons. Removing them you are left with this:
http://tinyurl.com/alfvgdy
Now we are left with the real data, and even Stealey does not want to attempt to claim that the data is “unequivocally” fitted by a straight line.
Thus the layers of camouflage.
Here is the average temperature data from 10 sets for this period fitted with an accelerating line.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png
The superiority of the fit is obvious, which is why Stealey goes nuts about it.
Philip Shehan:
You start your post at January 29, 2013 at 8:14 pm saying
Having read your several posts on WUWT, William of Occam would not agree that is the reason your post is “simple”. Let us recap for your benefit.
1.
You claimed a graph showed something.
(The graph was from a paper by Goklany whom you repeatedly called “Bolkany” which does not give confidence that you had read the paper.)
2.
Inger E disputed that the graph showed what you claimed because – she said – the data presented in the graph was incorrect.
3.
You replied that you knew more about the theory of science than her so you must be right.
4.
Several people (including Inger E and me) said your reply was laughable.
5.
You attempted to justify your assertion about what the graph showed saying to Inger E
6.
Inger E expressed surprise that you would make so stupid a comment as I quote at (5) and explained to you
7.
You tried to evade responsibility for your having presented data which was immediately challenged but you are incapable of defending by saying
8.
You presented the graph so the “argument” in this forum is yours: you chose to present that graph in support of your “argument”. It is a falsehood to claim the “argument” is not yours but is the “argument” of Goklany or anybody else.
9.
Throughout, and for the benefit of onlookers, D B Stealey repeatedly pointed out that your history on WUWT consists of peddling blatant nonsense as being information.
10.
Whether you or Inger E is right about the graph which you have provided here, your arrogance has defeated your assertions.
I hope I have managed to keep that simple enough for you.
Richard
Philip Shehan:
You have disrupted 3 previous WUWT threads by using a misleading graph concocted by SkS in your attempt to pretend that global warming is accelerating.
At January 30, 2013 at 1:05 am you have repeated that same method to pretend the same falsehood.
Contrary to your falsehood, there has been no discernible (at 95% confidence) global warming for 16+ years. And lack of discernible warming (at 95% confidence) for a time of 15 or more years is important.
The facts are clear.
According to the falsification criterion set by NOAA in 2008, the climate models are falsified by the recent period of 16+ years of (at 95% confidence) zero global temperature trend. This is because NOAA says the climate models simulations often show periods of 10 years when global temperature trends are zero or negative but the simulations rule out near zero trends in global temperature for periods of 15 years. What the models “rule out” nature has done.
The climate models are falsified: this contradicts your superstitious belief in AGW, and you need to come to terms with it.
Richard
Richard.
1. Are you saying that Figures 1 and 2 in the paper do not show what I “claim” they show?
2. Inger E got the numbers in Figure 1 wrong by a factor of 10. Then proceeds to lecture me at length on the proper use of scientific data.
3. Inger E said I did not know about basic science. I contradicted that claim.
4. Inger E’s, Stealey’s and your own sense of humour are not entireley relevent.
5. “I am not here to critique his paper, only to make sure it is quoted correctly.” Correct. Stealey used the wrong graph to abuse me, Inger E got the data wrong by a factor of 10.
6. Inger E’s interpretation of Figure 1 (numerically out by a factor of 10) has nothing to do with the fact that Stealey used Figure 2 to berate me which has been my point all along
7. Inger E, having gotten the numbers Goklany’s Figure 1 wrong by a factor of 10, disputes it. I point the error. Stealey on the other hand, with his usual abusive disregard for the facts, writes:
“If Shehan has a problem with Dr Goklany’s thorough analysis, he needs to take it up with the author. Impotently sniping at Dr Goklany here shows that Shehan is afraid to engage with the original expert source.” Let them sort that out.
8. Stealey presented the graph. The wrong one actually. I corrected him by presenting the right graph.
9. I have shown conclusively here how Stealey goes to a lot of effort to manipulate the data in order to mislead people.
10. My arrogance and your evident humility are not the issue.
And:
What is misleading or “concocted” about this graph? How do the concoctions compare with Stealey’s efforts?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png
Shehan keeps posting that bogus SkS chart [the last link in his comment]. That chart is based on a lie. It has no provenance. It is a fabricated bit of pseudo-scientific nonsense. This chart [and many similar charts that have been posted here] flatly contradicts it. They cannot both be correct. Shehan simply is lying with a bogus chart.
There is no acceleration in global warming. None at all. The title of this article is James Lovelock Recants. No credible individual, even on the climate alarmist side, agrees with Shehan. As Norah says:
“If the facts behind the graph, any of the graphs you refer to, aren’t correct, then your argument falls.”
Shehan’s argument fails because it is based on dishonesty: there is no acceleration of global warming. While it is amusing watching him furiously tap-dance around the issue, it is telling that Shehan avoids the fact that no one agrees with his “accelerating” nonsense. Not even those on his side.
It is an ugly fact of human nature that once some folks buy into a lie, they own that lie, and they will keep repeating the lie no matter how much empirical evidence debunks their false narrative. All Shehan needs to do is to admit that global warming is not accelerating. But he will not admit it because he is a liar, and he will own his lie no matter what the scientific facts are.
Philip Shehan:
Following my posts addressed to you at
January 30, 2013 at 3:00 am and January 30, 2013 at 5:17 am
you have replied to me with your post at January 30, 2013 at 12:03 pm.
I am now providing a complete response to your reply to me.
I wholeheartedly concur with the post addressed to you from D.B. Stealey at January 30, 2013 at 12:21 pm.
Richard
You can concur all you like but neither you nor Stealey has offfered one scintilla of explanation as to why this chart is “bogus” or concocted.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png
The reason is you cannot. It is simply a graph of temperature with an overlaying curve fit.
Stealey on the other hand has repeatedly refused to explain his delibrerate attempts to hide the truth with these graphs:
http://tinyurl.com/bkoy8or
http://tinyurl.com/ch49ytb
which shorn of his attempts at obfuscation clearly show that contrary to his claims, the temperature data is neither “unequivocally” fitted by a straight line, nor is it “decelerating”
http://tinyurl.com/alfvgdy
Philip Shehan:
You lie at January 30, 2013 at 2:31 pm when you write
D. B. Stealey and I have each repeatedly told you that the fitted curve is bogus because it has no basis in reality: it does NOT represent ANY known physical mechanism. It is added to the graph of the data with the sole purpose of misleading by giving a false impression that global warming is accelerating.
In reality there has been DEceleration (n.b. NOT acceleration) of global warming such that global warming has reduced to be undetectable (at 95% confidence) over the last 16 years.
The last time I tried to stop you selling that nonsense I got given a ‘time out’ from WUWT for copying previous posts. Hence, I cannot copy from another thread one of the several refutations of the fabricated nonsense which is your so-called graph.
The graph is a lie which you have peddled on 3 previous WUWT threads and it was refuted on each of them. You are providing another lie by trying to claim that it has not been refuted as being the lie which you know it to be.
Richard
Shehan says:
“…neither you nor Stealey has offfered one scintilla of explanation as to why this chart is “bogus” or concocted.”
Shehan is lying again. I have repeatedly posted this chart covering the same time frame as Shehan’s bogus chart, with an automatically generated trend line [the decelerating green line]. Shehan’s fake chart, OTOH, merely has a fake red curve drawn in. Once again, that chart has no provenance. It is not peer reviewed, and that fake trend curve is not based on empirical evidence.
And this chart, which Shehan mendaciously claims as his own, is one I have posted for the past year here. Both charts show conclusively that there is no acceleration of global warming.
Shehan lies like a child caught with chocolate all over his face, denying that he stole the candy bar. Now he is using the charts I previously posted, which absolutely falsify his bogus claim of “accelerating” global warming. Aside from that one fake SkS chart, nothing — and no one on either side, except for Shehan — accepts that global warming is “accelerating”. Not even Hansen or Lovelock.
Shehan is trying to make issues of anything and everything else, because he simply does not have the facts on his side: There is no global warming at present, and certainly no “accelerated” warming. I request that Shehan cease his “Big Lie” about that particular false claim. The rest of his mendacious nonsense does not concern me. Only Shehan’s lie that he continues to falsely perpetuate — claiming that global warming is “accelerating” — concerns me. Stop lying about it, Shehan. It is not true, and you know it.
Stealey:
I’m sorry. I did not realise your graphs had appeared in the peer reviewed literature.
In another thread, you took this plot:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/offset/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2010/trend/offset
and added a host of irrelevant camouflage, most ludicrously by taking the Hadcrut3 temperature data, descaling it by a factor of 100,000 so that it appears as a horizontal straight line and offsetting it way down from the real data at 9 on the Y-scale.
http://tinyurl.com/bkoy8or
What possible reason could there be for this treatment? To flatten the plot in the vertical direction compress the data, effectively forcing people to squint at the temperature data through a demagnifying glass so that you can claim that the temperature data is “unequivocally” fitted by the green straight line.
Astonishingly, you state that I claim this graph as my own. I would not touch it with a barge pole. This piece of complete nonsense is all your own work and you have refused over and over again my request to the evident subterfuge.
You try it again on this thread, this time taking the fit back to 1850 but using the same tactics for the same purpose, only this time claiming that the green straight line shows deceleration.
http://tinyurl.com/ch49ytb
It does not.
I present the data and line with the camouflage removed and add straight lines for the first and last 50 years.
http://tinyurl.com/a28qbzx
Decelerating? I don’t think so.
You again fail to give any reason why this plot is fake:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SummaryTable.png
I have given its provenance (Philip Shehan says: January 28, 2013 at 6:16 pm)
With regard to your statement:
“I have repeatedly posted this chart covering the same time frame as Shehan’s bogus chart, with an automatically generated trend line [the decelerating green line]. Shehan’s fake chart, OTOH, merely has a fake red curve drawn in.”
I note in the post at 6:16 pm that a linear fit is not automatically generated. You request that the data be fitted to a straight line by an iterative program. I write:
“Given the noisy nature of temperature data for short periods, [a few decades or less] a linear approximation is the best that can be hoped for. There is no reason to assume temperature data should match a straight line, and clearly for data going back centuries and millennia it does not.”
You have offered no theoretical basis for your straight line fit (I will accept a practical explanation – it’s the only fit WFT offers.) OK for short term trends, manifestly inadequate for temperature data over centuries and millenia.
The fact is that neither you or I are obliged to give any theoretical reason for thchoice of function. The purpose of the fit is simply to see how well such a function matches the data.
The nonlinear fit (the red line) to the temperature data is also produced by an iterative program to a nonlinear function. From my earlier post:
“The temperature data is fitted by an iterative program to a non linear function producing the best fit curve shown with a correlation coefficient r2 of 0.8412.
This is no different to the fitting of temperature data to a straight line commonly used for multidecadel data.”
Your phobia concerning material presented on SKS can be overcome by reference to this graph:
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/11901124/img/Anonymous/hadsst2-with-3rd-order-polynomial-fit.jpeg
[snip]
Shehan says:
“The fact is that neither you or I are obliged to give any theoretical reason…”
Wrong, as always.
Per the Scientific Method, the onus is on the one proposing a conjecture — and your [dishonest] conjecture is that global warming is “accelerating”. It is not, as everyone but you will admit.
All it takes is one fact to falsify your conjecture. I have posted numerous scientific facts and empirical observations proving not only that global warming is not “accelerating”, but that for the past decade, global warming has stopped. Thus, your fabricated and un-sourced SkS chart is decisively falsified. You yourself even posted a chart showing a linear — not geometric — rise in [natural] global warming. It shows no acceleration in the rising temperature trend, thus flatly contradicting your own bogus SkS chart. They cannot both be right. [I should note that typical alarmist dissembling and dishonesty would cherry-pick short-term recent time slices to show bogus ‘acceleration’ of warming. But as these ten data sets show, in reality there is zero ‘acceleration’.]
I note that, as usual, you are arguing with everyone else, and that you are all alone in your false assertion that global warming is “accelerating”. That is because no one else, including Hansen and Lovelock, are willing to lie about it like you are.
An American named Al Franken wrote a book titled Lying Lies, and the Liars Who Tell Them. He could well have been writing about Shehan.
I see my last sentence in the preceeding comment was snipped and in fact I was preparing this apology to Richard:
Pardon me Richard I misread your post. You do say it was you who was given time out as was I.
Mr Watts explained that the unending back and forth between you and myself was utterly tedious for everyone, moderators included.
I entirely agree, but as long as you and Stealey are going to throw false and legally defamatory accusations against me I cannot let them slide.
The University of Sydney found that out when I blew the whistle on a particular department, suffered the usual consequences and declined to “move on”. The more they threw at me the more I fought, successfully representing myself in court. I won one case, where false criminal charges were brought against me. After I tore them to shreds and presented independent witnesses to their perjury I won and the arresting police officer came up to me and shook my hand.
I agreed to a draw in the other case after my accusers’ counsel pleaded for a truce. I had (again) caught them out lying under oath enough times to present the transcript to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (The judge congratulated me on my cross examination).
The point became moot when the department I had complained about suddenly collapsed like a house of cards, the financial cupbord being found to be bare.
So if you and Stealey think you can wear me down by unrelenting personal attacks and misrepresentations you have picked the wrong target. Much smarter and more powerful people and institutions have tried and failed.
Philip Shehan:
I write to ask you a simple question in hope of obtaining a simple answer (although I don’t anticipate anything other than long-winded irrelevance and evasion as your reply).
Concerning global temperature rise, in your post at January 30, 2013 at 4:30 pm you write
Global temperature rise has reduced to be indistinguishable from zero for the last 16+ years.
Using http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php to determine how long it has been that the global temperature trend is not different from zero at 95% confidence one obtains the following values from the different data sets.
RSS
Warming is NOT significant for over the most recent 23 years.
Trend: +0.126 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
UAH
Warming is NOT significant for over the most recent 19 years.
Trend: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
Hacrut3
Warming is NOT significant for over the most recent 19 years.
Trend: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
Hacrut4
Warming is NOT significant for over the most recent 18 years.
Trend: 0.095 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
GISS
Warming is NOT significant for over the most recent 17 years.
Trend: 0.116 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
The times to the nearest month when warming is not significant for each set are:
RSS since September 1989;
UAH since April 1993;
Hadcrut3 since September 1993;
Hadcrut4 since August 1994;
GISS since October 1995 and
NOAA since June 1994.
So, my question is
Please explain why you “don’t think” global warming has decelerated when global warming has reduced to be undetectable (at 95% confidence) by any measure since October 1995.
Are you claiming there was not discernible global warming (at 95% confidence) in the twentieth century prior to October 1995?
Richard
Shehan is dodging the issue again. And as predicted, he has cherry-picked very short-term time slots to show rising temperatures — but it is only cherry-picking like that, which supports his alarmist propaganda. I can easily do the same thing to show sharp declines in temperature, but I won’t, because it wouldn’t be honest.
We all know that Shehan is claiming “accelerating” global temperatures for at least the past several decades — and more. But empirical observations falsify that nonsense. And as Shehan points out in so many words, his On/Off switch is wired around, you can’t turn him off, and he will never admit to the fact that for the past decade there has been no measurable global warming. Even his alarmist contingent now admits temperatures have been flat.
[As an aside, I wonder how shehan can post all those L-O-N-G comments throughout his work day? Doesn’t he have a job?]
Philip Shehan:
I am surprised that you think your post addressed to me January 30, 2013 at 4:50 pm is an “apology”.
I write to reply to its conclusion which says
Ooooh, now I am frightened. Do you think I should borrow your teddy bear?
I have made no “personal attacks and misrepresentations” of you: I have merely objected to your lies.
Richard
Richard: You may recall that in another thread I stated that there was no evidence of accelerating temperatures for the last 17 year period.
I have also pointed out that given the noise and factors other than CO2 contributing to global temperatures, no 17 year period, still less an 8 year period, which Stealey has also presented, can be taken as representative of long term data.
If you recall this discussion began with the presentation of a graph in a published paper showing temperature data from 1880 to 2007.
Stealey has repeatedly failed to respond to my question as to why this 17 year period cannot be taken as demonstrating that temperatures since 1880 have been falling:
http://tinyurl.com/a5stzqn
Would you like to have a go at it or shall we simply call halt to this tiresome repetition of arguments before Mr Watts and the moderators again lose patience?
Philip Shehan says:
“You may recall that in another thread I stated that there was no evidence of accelerating temperatures for the last 17 year period.”
What?! All this time you have never disputed that you claim global warming is accelerating. You even posted charts supposedly showing that. You never responded when I pointed out repeatedly that Hansen, Lovelock and others contradicted your position. So now, in an un-named thread, you are backtracking?
Post a link to the comment you referred to, please. Because if you are now admitting that global warming has stopped for 17 years, you need to explain why you have been arguing incessantly to the contrary.
DB Stealey:
You dunce. How many times do I have to write this?
I have not been arguing about the last 17 years, the last or 16, or 15 or 8 because those short periods tell us nothing about what has happened since 1850 or 1880 to the present.
What is truly gobsmaking is that you constantly cherry pick these periods, fit them with straight lines, yet when I extend this to the last 50 years you write:
“Shehan is dodging the issue again. And as predicted, he has cherry-picked very short-term time slots to show rising temperatures — but it is only cherry-picking like that, which supports his alarmist propaganda. I can easily do the same thing to show sharp declines in temperature, but I won’t, because it wouldn’t be honest.”
Here is the post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/08/the-other-big-story-today-bbc-forced-to-admit-global-warming-static/#comment-1195880
Philip Shehan says:
January 14, 2013 at 7:11 am
With regard to your remarks about these graphs and the scientific method, remember how all this started?
A published paper presents a graph of temperature data from 1880 to 2007 is and the authors claim that an “informal” eyeballing shows no acceleration in temperature.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2007/mean:12
It does not look that way to me, so I added a linear fit to the data.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2007/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2007/trend
Just as I expected, the early and later part of the data rises from the straight line. Not a good fit and indicative of acceleration of the data.
No theory explaining the fit is involved here. It is an merely an observation of the dataobservation.
As a scientist I looked for an accelerating line which better fits the data. There is no non- linear fit available on WFT but there is a nonlinear plot available:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png
The accelerating line is clearly a better fit to the data.
Again this is a simple observation. No theory explaining the fit is involved. That comes next. Having made an observation the scientific method is to ask what theoretical explanation may explain this fit.
And here is the thought that horrifies you so much he must deny that the temperature data is fit by a curve.
A plot of CO2 concentration is a very similar shape to the curve for temperature
http://tinyurl.com/aj2us99
So a hypothesis (not a theory) can be offered:
Rising CO2 levels cause a rising temperature.
This is still not a theory, it is only a hypothesis. Further detailed investigation aimed at establishing a theory must be explored and confirmed to reach that status.
Shehan,
You say: “Rising CO2 levels cause a rising temperature.”
Wrong. As usual:
∆T causes ∆CO2 — not vice versa. How do I know? Because you cannot show a similar chart showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. Go ahead, try to find one. Show me I am wrong. It will be a first.
And:
“This is still not a theory, it is only a hypothesis.”
Wrong again, “scientist”. A hypothesis can be tested and falsified. AGW cannot. Therefore, AGW is only a conjecture. An opinion.
So are you, or are you not, now admitting that there is no evidence of global warming accelerating for the past 17 years? It’s either/or, chump.
I have repeatedly put you in the position of defending your belief that global warming is [not ‘was’] accelerating. You never contradicted that characterization, not once — until today. But now you are climbing down, and admitting that there has been no acceleration for nearly two decades. So much for all your previous bluster. In fact, global warming has never accelerated on any long term trend since the industrial revolution began, which destroys your CO2=CAGW belief system. Sorry about that, “scientist”. heh
Philip Shehan:
In my post addressed to you at January 30, 2013 at 5:12 pm I listed how there has been no discernible (at 95% confidence) global warming for 16+ years, and I asked you
And I said
My anticipation has proven to be correct.
However, in your post at January 30, 2013 at 10:05 pm you have written
As “as scientist” you did that !? As a SCIENTIST?
Are you for real!?
You fitted a curve that has no basis in reality or in physical theory but agrees with your prejudice of “acceleration”! And you have the temerity to claim you did that “as a scientist”!
Then – without any reason or justification and in contravention of the facts – you claim your curve “is clearly a better fit to the data”.
Words fail me.
If your prejudice is right then measured temperatures should be tracking your curve.
THEY ARE NOT.
Your curve shows accelerating warming.
Reality shows the warming has decelerated to be indistinguishable from zero over at least the most recent 17 years.
I repeat my question
Please explain why you “don’t think” global warming has decelerated when global warming has reduced to be undetectable (at 95% confidence) by any measure since October 1995.
Are you claiming there was not discernible global warming (at 95% confidence) in the twentieth century prior to October 1995?
Please answer the question.
And please note that an acceptable answer is NOT that you have generated a curve which fits your prejudice so empirical reality must be ignored and your unreal curve must be accepted.
Richard