First:
the science tells us that absent natural variation, there is an underlying warming trend
i.e. the net effect of natural variation does not explain warming
you cherry picking the odd chart and misrepresenting the odd comment does not change that.
And you ask what time period is relevant. Over the last 100 years when greenhouse gasses have been building up we have had that ongoing trend, at a much faster warming rate than any natural process; that is the relevant time frame
Now I know you like to disagree with that pathologically, but you have not rebutted the science on that and
your own emails tell us the scientists have carried out analysis on that, plus I've posted before on that using science sources.
You ranting that you don't agree and demanding we do it all again is a waste of space.
Second:
the comments I made about watts and tisdale are relevant in two respects
1. you claimed only a day or so ago that you don't use denial web sites, you do your own research
Well that's been blown out of the water hasn't it, not that any of us who have seen your posting believed you in the first place. Your sources are not scientific, they are denialist blogger websites; fact. And your attempts to claim otherwise are transparent porkies.. You are not providing science in support of your arguments.
2. as I stated, those webs sites are from layman posters, with no science credentials, who's work has been discredited in the science.
now that is not playing the man, that is pointing out the lack of credibility, qualification and poor analysis from those sites
I am not wasting my time rebutting again every doctored graph and irrational interpretation from tisdale and watts, we've been there, done that. Just because you like to repeat their bulldust does not mean I have to go to the trouble of pointing out the errors and logical fallacies yet again. If their arguments have credibility they'll get published in science journals. They are not.
You may be convinced by a tv weather reporter and a retired nasa mechanical engineer and think they have a clue; you may refuse to accept the scientific arguments against them. Fine, but get used to being told your sources have zero credibility.
Give you something to work with. Yep, go read some science and find some science that rebuts it. You know the 3% that you think are Gallileo. And when you do, we'll be able to quote the science that points out the errors or limitations of their work.
