Stevo
Your comments actually show you are stretching the chewy quite a bit.
Todays is the 5th Sept , the Conversation article was written yesterday, the 4th Sept about a research paper also released to the public on the 4th Sept. It has not been out for days as you state, unless there was a pre-release article.
Here is the actual article that was published ,
It is available under the creative commons licence.
A probabilistic analysis of human influence on recent record global mean temperature changes
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163
They suggest that " The statistically robust approach used in this paper, incorporates time series modelling, validation and bootstrap simulation and provides a probabilistic assessment of global warming, strongly complementing the scientific evidence for the anthropogenic origin of recent climate change. "
How good is your maths Stevo? I studied some of the time series techniques they use in this paper and even with my quals I would defer to the authors in this case that thier maths skill is far better than mine.
Here is a summary from that paper.
We construct and validate a time series model of anomalous global temperatures to June 2010, using rates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as other causal factors including solar radiation, volcanic forcing and the El Niño Southern Oscillation. When the effect of GHGs is removed, bootstrap simulation of the model reveals that there is less than a one in one hundred thousand chance of observing an unbroken sequence of 304 months (our analysis extends to June 2010) with mean surface temperature exceeding the 20th century average. We also show that one would expect a far greater number of short periods of falling global temperatures (as observed since 1998) if climate change was not occurring. This approach to assessing probabilities of human influence on global temperature could be transferred to other climate variables and extremes allowing enhanced formal risk assessment of climate change.
Now , just exactly what are your sources saying that shows that this work is wrong?
I would like to see the maths, not the rhetoric/
