http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/temperature-trends-and-carbon-dioxide-a-note-from-cohenite/

Since I wrote that, proving ( ha, ha) that temp trends in the 20thC are entirely natural, the White and Cayon paper and the Compo and Sardeshmukh papers have surfaced proving tha temp trends are entirely caused by ENSO and SST coupling; Bob Tisdale, who is not old, has recently produced a piece on ENSO caused temp trends. I’m beginning to think Will is a character from an Orwell novel.

Will; show me the quote; AR4, Executive Summary p131-132 allocates 2/3’s of GHG forcing, as expressed in temperature to CO2; TAR and AR4 also allocate a temperature response to a doubling of CO2 of 3C, best estimate.

So you agree he’s wrong. Thanks.

barf – here we have it – the “scientific” sceptic philosophy – oooo – it’s nature – oooooo swoon – oooooo ! what a science platform – give us a break

And how do you know he/she is a bogan – might be Gothic or Emo

The obvious next question is how, exactly, did the IPCBull$hit arrive at this 2/3rds figure? Was this another one of those little round the table guesses, where each member plucked a number out of their bum and they then averaged the plucked numbers?

In any event, knock a third off the trend line in the satellite lower atmospheric series and that little bulge from 2002 to 2005 is looking sadder and sadder all the time.

Show me the quote where the IPCC says that.

Of course the trend is up, bogan, there has been a long term trend out of the maunder minimum and we have not yet reached the same heights that were present, naturally, before we entered the maunder minimum. Therefore, the trend is still entirely within the natural range of variation.

More importantly, if 2009 has that volcanic eruption that we are rather overdue for then both the actual and the trend will be well below the comparable mid 1980’s and 1990’s troughs that made the 1998 El Nino look so unusual.

This argument of the climate scum that the trend is entirely related to CO2 is pure Bull$hit, as the temp data makes quite clear.

The “hard science” needs to be understood to recognize the fundamental flaws in the CO2->AGW hypothesis.

To wit, the laws of thermodynamics with at least a passing exposure to convective heat transfer in fluids and gases. It also helps to have a feel for enthalphy; the heat storage capacity and density of materials. And, almost as a passing thought; some wave theory to understand spectral content and how it interacts (potentially) at the molecular level.

A large part of that used to be done in senior high school physics, chemistry and mathematics. (When I were a lad!) And then enriched in the first years of Engineering and hard and some applied science courses.

MBBS I gather is a medical qualification. Those and other qualifications listed are very unlikely to have been exposed to the hard sciences to the necessary degree. (Pun incidental)

BUT! Science education doesn’t limit the scope of learning and wisdom. It opens many doors. Scientists and Engineers should all be equipped with the ability to use the perspective that they’ve gained from science education. That hopefully includes a recognition that they know very little at all; to take spare moments of their lives to broaden and deepen not only their knowledge and understanding; and most importantly; to keep looking again for errors in things that they hold to be true.

It is not beyond those without a formal qualification to graps the concepts involved. It requires persistence and the ability to think logically and abstractly.

There is no greater mistake than to be without doubt about one’s own beliefs and thoughts.
(N.B.: I could be wrong about that!)

There must be no unequal doubt. Scrutiny should be not be biased by the qualifications of those presenting ideas.

And BTW how did punching out your fellow Aussies go down at Goolwa? Or did you give it a miss (again)?

Have you looked at the past temperature record? It zig zags all over the place, but the underlying trend is up.