I don’t care that you don’t care about what I believe.

[JR: Then we are in agreement.]

He gets to spout off in another room, if you will, without distracting anyone else. Nylo could write about his “severe doubts” while the rest of the planet discusses adaptation and mitigation.

Jus’ sayin’. If I had the steady time for a blog, I wouldn’t do it, personally.

Best,

D

My own personal prediction has already been posted before in several other threads. My own prediction for global warming is shown in the next graph, which uses the same GISS data just posted by Dano without negating any of its past values, my purely-climate trend proposal being the greenish straight line compared to the climate+weather red line given by the 5-year averaged temperatures in GISS and the purely-climate proposal approximately given by IPCC in blue. My climate+weather (i.e. recorded temperature) believed record is the same red line given by GISS and my future prediction is the greenish dotted line which continues the red line of GISS and therefore implies that I do not negate any of its past values. What I deny is the predictions for the future because I disagree with how much of the warming was climate change and how much was weather.

http://www.elsideron.com/GlobalTempPredictions.jpg

As you can see, I defend a global warming scenario created by GHGs. I have said that before many times but you seem to remember only what you want to remember. The only difference is that my scenario is far less alarmist than yours and IPCC’s, and predicts some short-term cooling.

I am not a denier of any temperature change experienced since 1900. I have severe doubts though about temperature reconstructions that go farther in time, like the hockey stick. And I have even more severe doubts about “official” temperature predictions for the future. I personally deny that all the warming experienced is a climate change, as I believe that quite an ammount of it is weather. However I still think that some of it comes because of some climate change, and I don’t deny any of the experienced warming itself. Maybe you could get a better idea of what my opinions are if you stopped deleting them.

[JR: Nylo -- The reason you are getting banned is that you keep repeating denier nonsense that wastes everyone's time. Who cares if you have "severe doubts" about the Hockey Stick? The U.S. National Academy of Sciences doesn't. I wonder which of you people should believe. And who really cares about your prediction of "short-term cooling." I think we will stick here with what actual science and factual observations show.]

Denialists have nothing else.

This has been a public service announcement from the Foundation for Simple Answers to Simple Questions.

Best,

D

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

It seems to be one of the mutiply repeated mantras of the denialists that, unless the next day is warmer than the previous, the next month, the next year, etc., then this refutes global warming. Now, it does not require anything like a meaningful grasp of even the most elementary aspects of statistics to realize that such an assumption is the most ridiculous sort of nonsense on stilts imaginable. As soon as one applies some statistics to the assumption, its patent idiocy becomes even more strikingly manifest:
http://www.realclimate.org/ index.php/ archives/ 2008/ 05/ what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/ langswitch_lang/ in for example.

So my question to Nylo is this: Why do you keep waving around Red Herring’s (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html)? By itself, it is demonstrably irrelevant whether the preceding day/month/year was a record setter. The data is indicative of long-term, statistically meaningful trends. The facts that so much of the data so consistently pushes the numbers so significantly over the average *IS* significant.

Yet somehow you never manage to mention those facts, facts which are the only ones that are genuinely relevant in this context. Any special reason for that?

The last 7 years’ map.

The last 4 years’ map.

No cooling.

Nobody believes you.

Like I said: you’re full of it.

Can’t the denialists do any better than this? Fake data? Misinformation? Is it any wonder decision-makers don’t talk to denialists? Denialists can’t be trusted with facts.

Best,

D

[JR: Denying you are a denier? Enough Nylo. You are wasting everybody's time.]

This is why the delusionist/denialist fringe is a small minority: folks who have facts know the delusionist/denialist fringe was called on their BS long ago.

So I do it again: Nylo, I call BS.

Best,

D