Thanks Martin, even Buckets need love :-)

I didn't single out Dung for any personal reason, just that he clearly does not believe the GHG hypothesis. If there is a rise in CO2 and you believe the hypothesis, then other things being equal, warming follows. If you reject the hypothesis then clearly there is no reason for consequential warming.

We know that the CO2 balance has changed, so there must, other things being equal, be an accumulation of heat (somewhere). It is only the "other things being equal" part that should be debatable and as Mr Betts' indicates, other things are not necessarily equal. His post seems a very measured scientific statement and makes it clear that various causes must be considered. In contrast, your, "Which pretty much nullifies their CO2 message." seemed to jump directly to a conclusion. Hence my surprise.

Note that if one looked back over the temperature graph of the last century, one would have to say of the rises, falls and hiatuses (sounds ugly) that, "buggered if we know", probably summarises quite well science's answer to the question of why many occurred, even with the benefit hindsight.

Looks like someone had some fun looking for those trends. If you like graphs and trends, take a look at the SkS page on warming since 1998. They are rather more impressive than yours ;-)

Harold, your graphs paint a different picture because they are plotting different quantities. Theirs plot anomaly vs time and yours plot 10-year trend vs start year. Also, why don't you plot back to 1900 when the HADCRUT3 data series start instead of just 10 years? What is special about starting in 1991?

Why have they not updated the graphs? At a guess, because they are quoting from papers that were published on the dates they state and the papers have not been rewritten. I'd say that is unremarkable, but maybe you see an ulterior motive.

I didn't remark on your original graph because I didn't know what to make either of it or of your interpretation. I also didn't want to be rude. I don't have a background in data analysis or statistics, so I can shed no expert light on your graphs. My gut feeling as a layman is that finding a 60-year periodicity in the derivative of a 120 year time-series (2 cycles) is fanciful. If you are a statistician you have doubtless computed a confidence level (or some such metric), which you can tell us. If you are not and have not, I would recommend not reading so much into your discoveries. That is not intended as an insult, just an answer (since you asked directly for one).

Hilly, I saw your post only after posting to Harold. Since you ask, I don't think climate science can hope to please everyone.

Climate science (and much other science) is full of ifs and buts, of theories and propositions, of probabilities and possibilities. If scientists present their work in that form they will have no audience except each other. The public, like patrons of BH, want facts.

If on the other hand scientists present their work as fact, with uncertainty removed, they must chose between their various interpretations. They will then be condemned by people like you for choosing the wrong option, for emphasising their most probably outcome instead of the most benign.

Scientists cannot win in such an environment and you know it. The question is insincere which is why the discussion have moved on.

BB, you are basically admitting that if the scientists reveal the true picture, then they wouldn’t be able to mobilise people to act on CO2. Agreed 100%! In which case, you’d better hope that CO2 isn’t that big a deal.

You cannot con a global population into turning our back on the substance that has raised most of us out of poverty and disease. If you haven’t got really good evidence that fossil fuels have to go then you’ll fail. The more you push substandard evidence, the harder it will be to make people listen if and when you have real evidence. Think frog in a pan of slowly heating water.

It is coming as a shock to climate scientists to discover that ‘trust me I’m a scientist’ means very little. Why? Scientist is just a label. It doesn’t guarantee quality work, It doesn’t ensure good record keeping. It doesn’t say you’ve been certified as a good person. It just means you’re quite clever and you get to work under your own initiative a lot. There seems to be no move to make climate science adopt any of the checks and balances required from businesses who impact upon the public. How can we trust them when intellectual property rights mean more to them than transparency and accountability?

Climate scientists and the top warmist agitators like Gore do not act like they believe CO2 is an issue. They have had the best induction into CO2 evidence anyone is going to get and they can’t give up the hydrocarbons. And don’t tell me that it’s disingenuous to expect them to suffer more than the rest of us for their cause. If they can’t convince themselves to experience the misery of a low CO2 existence, what hope have they of convincing the rest of the planet?

“But it’s big business and industry that has to make the real changes,” you might say. No! That’s the whine of a silly child who has no idea how business works. Businesses try to be as energy efficient as possible or they go bust. You can’t magically make them use very little energy. Only a new low CO2 energy source would change CO2 emissions from industry.

If there was a viable energy source to replace fossil fuels then we’d be using it, CO2 or no CO2. Installation of wind farms are the actions of those who can both afford expensive energy and don‘t mind spending other people’s money on vanity projects that will be loathed no matter what the future brings. This laughable idea promoted by warmists, that oil companies are suppressing other, viable new technologies is straight out of a Disney movie. With all the moustaches this Movenber, warmists must think oil barons are on every corner. People don’t use alternatives to what they’ve got now because the alternatives are not fit for purpose.

So let’s recap:-

Insufficient evidence.
Poor quality control.
Hypocritical leaders.
Rubbish solutions.
Significant action on CO2 – NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

So BB, instead of playing the troll here, start lobbying your own side. There are ways to make climate science more believable but it would involve hard work and new working practices which I’m not sure climate scientists have the discipline for.

Heres one academic communicator, communicating what exactly (at Copenhagen)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cardiff_friends_of_the_earth/4190476939/in/photostream

Does dressing up like a smurf help?

or language like this.
http://twitter.com/AJCorner/status/6429777167

but of course motivated reasoning and ideology only applies to one 'side'
http://talkingclimate.org/a-greener-shade-of-blue-communicating-climate-change-on-the-right/

oops first url, was at House of Commons, just before Copenhagen.. (friends of the Earth member, Stop Climate Chaos rally
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cardiff_friends_of_the_earth/4190476939/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cardiff_friends_of_the_earth/4191239174/in/photostream

Adam writes it up here:
http://www.foecardiff.co.uk/content/cardiff-campaigners-demand-climate-action-record-breaking-protest

this one was at copenhagen a couple of weeks later. (Green Party candidate)
http://t.co/Hdqz9Wbn

for choosing the wrong option, for emphasising their most probably outcome instead of the most benign.

You would dearly like that to be what they do or have been doing, but it isn't. You are promoting a meme that most people at BH know to be untrue.

NW, there is an 'if' at the beginning of the paragraph you quote.

Your thread and mine nicely complement each other, Hilary. Mine is about finding ways for skeptics to have their concerns at least heard (and preferably listened to) in the corridors of power, whereas warmist scientists, having had unfettered input into public policy for many years, seem concerned that that level of access is under threat due to a loss of IPCC authority, a "failure to communicate". So do they know more than we know? Are research funds showing signs of drying up? And is it a case of scrambling for the lifeboats as the IPCC ship goes under, very very slowly?

At the end of the day it is a question of who, and which research units, the policymakers keep listening to. In the event of any downsizing of the climate research industry, correct positioning could be crucial to ongoing involvement.

BB, indeed there is. So, as your scenario is pure speculation, what basis do you have for assuming that we would react in such a manner?