I Understand people are not aware of the trends of today, but with that there is standards that are meant to be followed with the Government. Why is it that they are not even coming close to what they are suppose to be delivering?

Roger

Have a look at these two plots of UAH data + linear regression:
The last 120 months show a positive trend,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/last:120/mean:12/plot/uah/last:120/trend
The last 100 a negative:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/last:100/mean:12/plot/uah/last:100/trend

Does that mean that the trend suddenly reversed?
Of course not. But it makes it obvious that there is no point in looking at such short term intervals. The noise is too large to see a statistically meaningful signal.

Tamas Calderwood :

And I think we can categorically state that NASA GISS and the CRU HadCRUT data have been adjusted to suit the views of the global warming alarmists. The leaked emails and particularly the leaked computer code from CRU confirm this. That is why I only trust the satellite data.
This is turning into the biggest scientific scandal in history Matt. I am outraged that we have been lied to like this. Why aren’t you?

Can you provide some evidence for this please? I’ve seen nothing that would support this point of view.
My outrage goes towards those that take quotes out of context and use this to dream up some conspiracy, just so that they don’t have to have an actual fact-based discussion.

D.

This is self-evidently a lie. It amounts to claiming that the magma wants to flow through a tall mountain, above sea level, where the crust is thicker, in preference to magma wanting to go through rift-zones, in the deep ocean, where the crust is more thin.

When I heard this fraudulent claim I immediately tried to find out where it came from. The liars involved in this new scandal had to go back to 1991 to find anyone stupid enough to make such a claim. And the claim itself is not based on any direct evidence. Its not as if there was any survey involved with the Gerlach 1991 study.

Nevertheless this has not stopped the usual fraudsters locking this claim in as the revealed truth. Though it is self-evidently wrong and they can find no evidence for it.

I do appreciate that for some, the word “denier” triggers a highly emotive response, apparently based on associations with Holocaust denial. Personally, I deeply object to the words “denial” and “denier”, applicable to many situations, being reserved solely for those few odious characters who engage in rewriting WWII history.

There have been several major examples in recent years of dangerous and damaging denial of overwhelming scientific evidence: the most prominent, perhaps, being HIV denial, where Thabo Mbeki and friends have, by virtue of supporting a position which wilfully ignored the massive evidence that HIV causes AIDS, effectively killed millions over recent years and coming decades. Tobacco denial – the denial of the overwhelming evidence that tobacco causes cancer – likewise delayed action to limit tobacco’s impact and likewise killed millions. The denial of the basic conclusions of climate science looks likely to have consequences even more serious than those examples.

Anyway, given that some find the term offensive, and apparently refuse to engage in discussion as a result, the word “contrarian” may be suitable alternative: one who takes a position contrary to the mainstream view.

‘Climate deniers’? Literary and academic credibility thereafter = 0. Swooping stereotyping and what can only be perceived as name-calling simply aren’t the hallmarks of any individual of a cognitive propensity.

Neuronal collisions of no particular consequence? I couldn’t have said it better myself. They’re of very little consequence indeed.

Um, so how is the 0.38C warming trend over the past 30 years consistent with your claim of 0.2C warming per decade?

And by the way, none of the models expected the world to stop warming this decade. And it has stopped warming. No matter what you say you cannot get around that fact.

I have done a linear regression on the UAH data, again, and here is what the trend is from October 2009 back to October in the following years:

2006 -0.11
2005 -0.16
2004 -0.20
2003 -0.14
2002 -0.13
2001 -0.15
2000 -0.07
1999 0.05
1998 0.11
1997 -0.04
1996 0.04
1995 0.12

Those trends are basically flat or negative all the way back to the mid 1990′s. How can that be when we’ve had record human CO2 production since then?

And I think we can categorically state that NASA GISS and the CRU HadCRUT data have been adjusted to suit the views of the global warming alarmists. The leaked emails and particularly the leaked computer code from CRU confirm this. That is why I only trust the satellite data.

This is turning into the biggest scientific scandal in history Matt. I am outraged that we have been lied to like this. Why aren’t you?

“As for the “shameless manipulation of data, cherry picking and trumpeting of outright falsehoods”, well I say that is the definition of how the global warming alarmists act.

They erased the medieval warm period and now the CRU leaks show how.

They stopped others from being published in the peer-reviewed literature.

They have refused to release their data in an outrageous breach of the protocols of openess in science.

Yet you say what has been revealed is damning of the sceptics? How do you come to that conclusion?”

These accusations have not been denied even by the CRU scientists.

Personally let me say i am all for looking after the environment. I agree we need to do something even god forbid a carbon trading scheme. But this whole thing stinks of a deeper political agenda of which I have a few crack pot theories. For one carbon tax is a ridiculous name, we are all carbon based life forms so are we trying to tax humanity??? and have a look at where the majority of carbon comes from….you will find that interesting. For starters it should be a pollution tax or scheme, and alternative energy investment. NOT because of global warming but rather due to the fact we have to cut down our living standards and learn to share the earths recources. Even if we went all green and on solar panels etc there is only a certain amount of raw material available etc. So in actual fact we need to live simpler lives, maybe only one car instead of two…oh no i said it hahah why dont people do that …that would cut down our pollution levels etc. or even not have lights on after dark lol no more need for power stations…i am being hypothetical but i am right. Why don’t we all be more generous to begin with. Because we are all selfish bastards and we think we cant do anything…so that actual problem is humanity itself…mmm wonder who else says that…look up the club of rome and find there data files. Anyway bottom line is if you, matt and tamas decided to put our money towards making an orphange in our life time we def could. There would be sacrifices but thats what you may have to do to see maybe up to 1000 kids live. So in reality we dont want to change because the issue is one that goes back to our own selfishness…..in reality a carbon trading scheme is may help a little in the planet sharing resources if it is done in the right way but in actual truth the problem is us…so whos up for stuff buying a house and build an orpanage to save 1000 kids, or selling there car and walking or not turning off there lights at night and etc….oh not you thought so…we are all hypocrites.

Secondly this smell of a huge political grasp for power. This will be the first global ets or tax whatever you want to call it. Lets put it out there, its gonna happen. But who wants the power and why??? ill leave that for you to think about and maybe research into a bit. Also look at Rudds scheme, who sets the value of life itself(carbon) is it fairt tale rudd or is it the UN or some other body….that is the question we all should be asking… as aussies.