Temp Charts and lies, page-20

Gneissic - Thank you for your response. In reply:

1. The mere existence of models which (a) project a 4 degree or more increase by 2100 and which models (b) have been peer reviewed, is evidence enough.

Furthermore, that whole seminars - presented by scientists - have been devoted to the 4 degree warming scare should put your query beyond doubt.

I don't have that video link, but if I find it again, I'll post it for you. Then I'll ask you to do the explaining!!

2. The "missing heat" is the defence put forward by climate scientists in love with the idea that the heat differential between average theoretical modelled heat in the lower atmosphere, and actual measured lower atmospheric temperatures between the year of commencement of "the pause" to the present, MUST be located in the oceans.

Take your pick as to whether "the pause" commenced in 1998, or 2002 or 2004: Looking at the graph you've posted, if the hypothesis that the missing heat were buried in the oceans, we would see a change in gradient of the heat content line, from the commencement date of "the pause", to the present.

As the gradient over "the pause" differs little to that which commenced circa 1990 i.e. about a decade before the pause, the climate scientist defence does not hold.

3. Right now, global average temperatures aren't exactly going to plan. So whatever 'trees' we agree on as settled science, we still don't know enough about the climate science 'forest' to be making trillion dollar decisions globally which may ultimately prove to be wrong or wasteful.

Any climate scientist worthy of that title should therefore take stock and play the role of scientist, instead of the role of advocate.

Gneissic - All the theory in the world amounts to a hill of beans when measured results deviate to such an extent from expectations. Every year of "pause" that goes by is just another nail in the coffin of climate science credibility.

As the latest article in this week's Weekend Australian attests, this whole issue of climate science credibility could put the public's faith in "science" back hundreds of years.