Ah, hallelujah for NoTroll, best piece of javascript I ever wrote. RKS is now on the list. I'll reply to shub's email in a bit.

Yes, I accept the main argument of the original AR4, if you mean the small (~1 degree) rise due to direct heating from extra greenhouse gases.

I still have problems with the actual measured rises, too many activist hands have been on the record, I'm not convinced they've removed UHI, etc.

Please don't use the insane one's name in any reply if you want me to read it, the script doesn't care.

"Please don't use the insane one's name in any reply if you want me to read it, the script doesn't care.

Feb 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM | TheBigYinJames"

Nor do I sunshine!

A coward who cannot allow an opposing viewpoint - shut your eyes and it'll all go away - you hope!

Come to think of it I'm a bit fed up with using my RKS acronym anyway - time for a change I think.

When the great Lukewarmist Lindzen actually states that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 causes a rise of i deg C or more, has anyone here decided what the Lukewarmist philosophy actually is?.

I note you wait until you think I can't read your comments to call me a coward (NoTroll comes with a toggle, I can have it on or off at will)

It's exasperation, not cowardice. I've spent a long long time trying to bring you up to the knowledge level of say, a bright mid-teenager, in order to let you see the numerous places you go wrong in you thinking. I'm not sure why I take this time, I think it's perhaps pity for you on one level, but also the desire to strengthen the skeptic camp by eradicating the excesses of stupidity.

In the course of these numerous exchanges, I will say something, demonstrate it to you, cite references. It's never enough for you. You come up with what you think are killer ripostes, and I cater for all of them. You have never once been able to refute anything factual that I have told you. Never ever.

This is partly because of a certain intellectual deficiency on your part, which I think is obvious to all, even if they are too polite to mention it, but it is also because you are plain wrong. You may as well try to prove that gravity doesn't exist. It's easy for me to counter your claims because they are patently incorrect and not internally consistent. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

The sad thing is - you know this. Part of your anger at the moment, and the reason you always run away from the radiative physics threads is because you know when you're beaten. You always end up shouting and stropping off like a big girl.

Instead you've adopted the Zedders strategy of just making the place as messy and inconvenient as you can. This thread is a prime example - you don't like Lukewarmers, more power to your elbow. So why are you here? Because you want to make a big splat, like a spoiled kid. You want to spoil it for everyone else.

If you can't have it your way, then it's to be messed up. It's a very childish and destructive behaviour. I'm sure you'll have a good swagger and shout about this. That's all you're good for these days.

Unless you want a new radiative physics thread? Thought not.

RKS, the thread was mine and shub's, not yours. You're welcome to chime in if you have something substantive to say, but ranting and now borderline racism is not welcome. I didn't believe you could be any more obnoxious than you'd already been, but I see you have new depths to plumb. If shub wants to continue the conversation with you, he's welcome to it, but I credit him with more nous.

So do you actually have anything substantive to say? No, didn't think so.

If you do want to continue, shub, might I suggest email?

sigh

sigh

sigh

apologies for possibly intruding into some kind of weirdly polarised argument.

There is no lukewarmer position. Steve Mosher, Lucia Liljegren and Tom Fuller probably all hold different views.http://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/

My view is that the CAGW stuff is overdone. And the "natural variability" stuff is unscientific - what exactly is varying? The lukewarmers align with "warmers" but say that they do not believe that temps will increase as much as the hardcore crowd, for whatever reasons.

I suggest that a lukewarmer null hypothesis would be: temperatures on Earth will vary according to natural cycles of the planet's motion around the sun.

and if you wanted to model that, Martin A, how would you do that?

Civil war on the hill! Not surprised. Always seems an odd alliance between some thinking people and a mixture of the credulous, cranks and extremists. Trouble with RKS? No surprise there either. Seems to have a license to insult not granted to others. Sometimes wonder if he is the Bishop's alter ego...

Trouble with RKS? No surprise there either. Seems to have a license to insult not granted to others. Sometimes wonder if he is the Bishop's alter ego...

Feb 8, 2013 at 3:05 AM | Snitful

To be honest I think he just responds to one or two other people who insult him because of his views on climate. It's a shame the tit for tat went on for so long as it got a bit boring after a while and skewed the thread.

Civil war on the hill! Not surprised. Always seems an odd alliance between some thinking people and a mixture of the credulous, cranks and extremists...

Feb 8, 2013 at 3:05 AM | Snitful

That's what makes for interesting reading. It's not meant to be taken seriously like some of the dedicated science blogs. More of a general purpose skeptics gossip page with the usual sprinkling of prima donna types and regular contributors of the latest scandals.

shub,

as I've pointed out earlier in the thread and others since, Lukewarmerism as a term covers just the temperature rise and not the attribution. So I can only give you what my take on it is (and since you already differentiate me from 'other' Lukewarmers, does it matter?)

For the record, no I don't think ALL of the temperature rise in the 20th century was caused by CO2. We don't understand interglacial warming in the first place, so it's possible to be a combination of nautural (fluctuation plus interglacial) and a small CO2 signal. The relative strengths of both explanations is is unknown. The CO2 effect could be insignificant.

Either explanation is supported by the actual measurements at the moment.

For those who insist that 'status quo' or 'natural interglacial' can be the only natural possible null hypothesis on its own have a serious problem. We don't understand the status quo, or the interglacial temperature rise. For a hypothesis to qualify as a null hypothesis, it has to actually BE a hypothesis, i.e. a model, mathematical or otherwise, that explains the observed data and has some predictive power so it can be invalidated.

I'd like to see that model, because as far as I know it doesn't exist.