Being asked things like:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679#comment-224682

“The RSS satellite temperature analysis in your presentation has a 0.18 degree per decade warming trend for the globe. Do you consider this to be insignificant?

What criteria did you use to select the 5 rural stations to represent the temperature change for the US?

Why do you believe that swings in the temperature of Central England are evidence that the world undergoes similar swings?

What is the source for the chart labeled “Medieval Warm Period – Little Ice Age”. Further, is it consistent with the chart that immediately follows, “The Holocene Optimum.””

and then further

“0.18 degrees per decade is the rate of warming of the RSS analysis from 1979 to the present. That is independent of what any of us “see”.

You have used 5 temperature stations from the Southeast United States to infer the temperature change of the entire United States.

Local temperatures are more variable than global temperatures.

The graph from the First Assessment Report is Hubert Lamb’s temperature reconstruction of Central England. It was mislabled “global temperature” in the report. It uses growing seasons to infer temperature before thermometers.

You have mislabled the scale. According to Lamb’s graph, the difference between the LIA and MWP in Central England was about 1.3 degrees (based on 50 year averages), not 4 degrees. A 4 degree temperature change is clearly incompatible with the “Holocene Optimum” graph, even given the coarse resolution.”

ROTFL – what a turkey shoot.

I wonder how much Archibalds presentation was tweaked for the conference?

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679#comment-224682
(Starts 714)

Archibald says to Leif Svalgaard in discussion of lack of correlation at certain parts of a time series on solar.

“My recommendation to Dr Svalgaard is, instead of hammering the TSI flat, why don’t you tweak yours so that it agrees with other data sets?”

Clearly aghast, Svalgaard replies “Maybe you would do something like this, not me.

Your comment #717 should be an embarrassment to you.”

Archibald reveals “It is also worth noting that almost all skeptics agree that we have/will get a least a 1 degC of warming from CO2 no matter how much we might wish otherwise.”

They do – what a massive admission? But what’s this very scientific “we might wish otherwise” WTF Religious zeal.

If you read the whole exchange I have never seen a more slimy attempt to bluff a serious scientist into adopting a position. And Svalgaard shows his disdain for unscientific impertinent behaviour.

So your standards dudes !

So your turn numb nuts.

You mean to tell me that you guys are predicting a cooling disaster and you are so pathetic and apathetic that you will just sit there and produce nothing. No warnings to government. Nothing to say.

You’re all full of wind and piss.

So no fence sitting now bullshit artists – where’s your policy briefing. Failure to produce one means you haven’t a clue.

If you haven’t a clue don’t go round talking about cooling disasters then.

You have ours – where’s your alternative.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679#comment-224682