To those who don't believe AGW is real

[shaunbhoy]

They could have put a tax on ice.

Nah. There can be no such thing as an Ice Tax (A Nice Tax?)

IGMC

[ace00]

From your link:

"One message from our study is that in the short term, you can see changes in the global mean temperature that you might not expect given the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)," said Noel Keenlyside from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University.

His group's projection diverges from other computer models only for about 15-20 years; after that, the curves come back together and temperatures rise.

There are so many logical dichotomies in this position it is laughable. I don't even know where to start.
I think the worm has truly turned on Global Warming. I really can't go on with this argument, though it was fun. In a sad, sad way.

Let me just polish my (crystal) balls and give you prediction:
"Succesive IPCC reports will water-down the effects of climate change until they come to a conclusion that the climates change and it will probably (likely, very likely 66.66662% ) get warmer by 1.3 degrees by 2120 (+/- .5 degree)"
Carbon taxes will remain in place indefinitely.

[NickFitz]

(Temperature Increase = F(C2) - F(C1) where F(c)=Ln (1+1.2c+0.005c^2 +0.0000014c^3) and c is the concentration in ppm)

Is the formula used to calculate warming through increased CO2.
Turns out to be around 1.3 degree C per century using this equation with IPCC parameters.
I am willing to accept this although I think the numbers are a bit high-side of probability.
AGWsters then run the numbers through a feedback mechanism. Here I disagree. I think the atmosphere is a complex mechanism with +ve & -ve feedback mechanisms. I think the agw theory has the balance wrong in favor of the +ve.
That's the sum of my argument.

"I disagreee" and "I think" are assertions, not arguments.

[NickFitz]

sas cannot grasp the simple fact that the main assertion of the IPPCC report, which was based on 1990's data, that global temps will rise due to CO2 is plainly flawed, as the temps have not risen as predicted, ergo the whole report can be dismissed.

Now, can I have my 7 litre V8 back now please?

As the housing market should have taught you, a variable can remain static or even decrease in the short term while still maintaining a long term upwards trend.

[NickFitz]

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...al-us-cli.html

Interesting - that domain is owned by Warren Meyer, the same chap who owns climate-skeptic.com - as I mentioned earlier, he used to work for Exxon.

[NickFitz]

Ah yes Coyote Blog - which uses as it's source ClimateSceptic

Ah, so he quotes what he says in one blog on another blog?

Clearly a reliable source

[shaunbhoy]

Ah, so he quotes what he says in one blog on another blog?

Clearly a reliable source

If ever a person's avatar reflected their intellect, eh Nick?

[NickFitz]

Hang on Dimmo, isnt the guy who wrote that a former exec of [insert name of any oil company here and then quote wikipedia as evidence]?

Mailman

Not Wikipedia, but the guy's current company's own profile of him:

http://www.recreationmanagers.com/ou...ement_team.htm

[NickFitz]

If ever a person's avatar reflected their intellect, eh Nick?

Ooh, argumentum ad hominem! Well done!

What were you doing on the day of the course in basic logic - playing frisbee?

See, I can do it too! It's easy, but unfortunately it's not a valid form of argument...

[tay]

As the housing market should have taught you, a variable can remain static or even decrease in the short term while still maintaining a long term upwards trend.

What is long term in global temp frame of reference then?