There is most definitely strong parallels between the creation/evolution debate and AGW debate.

One side is based in science
The other in dogma, pseudoscience and belief (shrouded in mystery)

In the case of AGW the “belief” is that humankind is simply incapable of influencing their environment. The “mystery” is that if humans ain’t doing it what is. Various sects have their own beliefs about this.

Amen

1) Is Gray wrong about this? Do you believe it *is* possible to measure an anomaly to a global temperature?

2) Again, I ask for clarification: Do you mean that since 1998 (specifically that year) there has been no increase beyond the 1998 temperature? If so it is a frequently rebutted point. (Sunday Telegraph excepted, naturally).

3) Is there a reason you don’t link to the original data from NASA? Is the ICECAP figure based on MSU data? UAH? RSS? U.Md? etc etc. (i.e. your fig bears only passing resemblance to those published by the collectors of the data (e.g. see sap-1 from 4th report for a simple summary).

4) Remind me again, what bits of Ken Ring and Vincent Gray are sound. Especially since ICECAP lists Gray as an “expert”. Indeed, they have a surprisingly complete list of denialists as their experts. Includes one or two people with what some sources call little standing in the climate science community. Everyone except Ken Ring it seems. Wonder if de Freitas was upset to find out that Ken invalidated his work on ozone. Anyone bothered to ask Ken about his thoughts on other issues, e.g. what governs sedimentation?

You would expect in a so called debate that they would be able to continue it, no get stuck on the same old ridiculous points, but they can’t. They just repeat themselves.

So Lank, it has been pointed out many times why you are wrong, can you please tell me why the argument put forth by Gareth is wrong. You can’t? Thought so, but at least you can repeat the good old lie, ‘there has been no warming’.

(Although it has warmed over the last 3 days here in New Zealand, so AWG is back on.)

Btw, love the polynomial best fit line, seems like the AGW lairs would use anything to come across as ‘correct’

who cares really

I do! If there were that many copies out there, I’d be getting a lot more in the way of royalties…

Doug – Can’t you read the graphs I’ve linked to. Atmospheric CO2 has increased steadily over the last ++30 years but there has been no significant ‘man made’ global warming over the last decade. How many years/decades of natural temperature variations would you need to see before your perceived warming effects of CO2 are tested?

There has been significant global warming over the last ten years. To make your claim, you have to ignore the fact that 1997 and 1999 were a lot cooler than 1998. Ten years later, 1998′s temperatures are more or less normal. Your assertion also ignores the 20-30 year lag in response to forcing. It takes a while for the oceans to heat up.

In response to the second part of your question (which is hardly novel here – been asked, and answered, many times), you need to look at multi-decadal averages. Ten years would be about the shortest reasonable one (the WMO standard definition of climate is averages over 30 years). We can see that the decadal average for 1999-2008 is warmer than 1989-98. If 2009-18 average is cooler than 99-08, then (if there have been no major volcanoes to cool things) that might suggest we need to look at the balance of forcings. But we’re doing that anyway…

To turn the question on its head: I’m intrigued as to how climate cranks will respond the next time the 2005 record is broken. Will they admit that there has been no “global cooling”? I suspect you’ll find an outbreak of messenger shooting: “the data must be wrong”.

“I can’t wait to read Gareth’s book – is a copy kept on a bedside table in all NZ hotel rooms?”

Man, you are ridiculous, you must be a sad old man, who cares really.

Hahahaha, sorry, I am embarrassed for you that you consider yourself a scientist. Your ‘PhD’ should be taken away from you for being so stupid.

These AGW liars are akin to flat-earthers…

Hey… using your logic of basing it on a few days, today where I live is much warmer than the last two days, I guess GW is back on then.

What are Gareth and his desciples beliefs on other topics? Is the fire and heat of hell due to AGW? Will NZ get into ‘hot water’ if kiwis do not agree with and obey his church’s 13 commandments?

No I don’t claim that the climate is back to normal only based on a few days. This would be ridiculous.

Once again I ask, do you know the difference between climate and weather?

I gather you don’t from this little gem

“there has been no significant ‘man made’ global warming over the last decade. How many years/decades of natural temperature variations would you need to see before your perceived warming effects of CO2 are tested?”

Btw, I don’t really think you are a expert, not at all.