see:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/imprecision-of-the-phrase-global-warming/

The core issue is that it is the radiative properties of the atmosphere that are changing, consistently, at an accelerating pace, to be more opaque to the infrared. The climate cannot stay the same. It’s excluded on fundamental physical grounds.

Most likely warming will be a big part of the response. Many people are willing to bet on it, on long enough time scales that the wiggles don’t matter. I, for one, expect bigger and bigger wiggles. So we’ll get brief surface cooling periods. But we won’t get periods when there isn’t extra energy in the system year over year, until we change our ways.

Temperature isn’t identical to energy, as I’m sure you know. Right now some of the extra energy appears to be going into latent heat as ice melts, for instance.

I long for it to happen.

Perhaps he would do us all a favour and calculate the trend derived using linear regression from the annual temperature anomalies measured by GISS, HadCRUT, RSS and UAH from 1998 to 2007. He will find that the numbers I quoted are correct. Then he can come back here, admit that he was talking shit and making a complete twat of himself, and then fuck off and learn some science.

‘Global warming’ is falsifiable, so the alarmist fanatics have abandoned this phrase in favor of the completely meaningless term ‘climate change’. That way they can never be proved wrong and any climate event can be blamed on man-made climate change. Fortunately the public are not stupid – people know when they are being conned.

And surely you can answer this very very simple question: imagine that a certain variable, measured at times t=1,2,3,4,5 and 6 has values 6,1,2,3,4 and 5. What’s the trend you would derive from simple linear regression?

Can you even understand why I’m asking you this question?

I will no longer reply anymore of your baloney since you are no longer even on the original subject of whether it was a 10 year warming or cooling trend.

You claimed it was a warming trend .With absolutely no factual SOURCED evidence to support it.

The writer and myself provided sources showing that there is no warming trend since 1998 and even a now cooling trend is now evident.

Sunsettommy and writer 2

Hostile troll named scientist 0

Have a nice day troll.

Here is why I was successful:

“Two intellectually honest tactics
There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:

1. revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic”

I did both by presenting a sourced rebuttal to his apparently false claim.

Since he never posted a direct counterpoint.I have already supported my claim in a satifactory manner.

His subsequent replies are simply prevaricating nonsense.

Excerpted from the link:

Written by by John T. Reed

Here is a list of the intellectually-dishonest debate tactics I have identified thus far. I would appreciate any help from readers to expand the list or to better define each tactic. I am numbering the list in order to refer back to it quickly elsewhere at this Web site.

1. Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive; for example, cult members and bad real estate gurus typically warn the targets of their frauds that “dream stealers” will try to tell them the cult or guru is giving them bad advice; name calling is only intellectually dishonest when the name in question is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; there is nothing wrong with using a name that is relevant and objectively defined; the most common example of name calling against me is “negative;” in coaching, the critics of coaches are often college professors and the word “professor” is used as a name-calling tactic by the coaches who are the targets of the criticism in question; as a coach, I have been criticized as being “too intense,” a common put-down of successful youth and lower level high school coaches.

Sunsettommy says:

You pour out a lot of namecalling that are deliberately nasty.Maybe in a ratio of 20:1 ?

2. Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating.

Sunsettommy says:

That is what you are doing now.Since I conclusively proved you wrong about your claim that it is a warming trend.

4. Citing irrelevant facts or logic: this is another form of tactic Number 2 changing the subject.

Sunsettommy says:

Yup you are now trying get me to discuss something else.Being entirely illogical in the process.With your absurd what does “Peak recorded anomaly” mean B.S. I actually answered anyway with link included.But you completely ignore it and continue the childish flogging over it.

This shows that not only you are illogical.But also irrational.

5. False premise: debater makes a statement that assumes some other fact has already been proven when it has not; in court, such a statement will be objected to by opposing counsel on the grounds that it “assumes facts not in evidence”.

Sunsettommy says:

Yup you tried to create something that does not exist: “WARMEST MONTH ON RECORD”.Out of this phrase “Peak recorded anomaly”

LOL

11. Vagueness: debater seems to cite facts or logic, but his terms are so vague that no facts or logic are present.

Sunsettommy says:

He tries to create something out of nothing as an attempt to get me away from the fact that I already disposed of his warming trend claim by using real evidence and posting a source to back them up.

He never posted anything that is real or supported.

I could go on showing that this dude is a hostily dishonest debator.

Here is the link showing how he is that way:

http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html

For the fourth time, I’ll ask you this very simple question: imagine that a certain variable, measured at times t=1,2,3,4,5 and 6 has values 6,1,2,3,4 and 5. What’s the trend you would derive from simple linear regression?

“OK, so you don’t actually know what ‘peak recorded anomaly’ means. And you don’t know how to calculate trends. Here’s that simple question again, that you’ve ignored twice already: imagine that a certain variable, measured at times t=1,2,3,4,5 and 6 has values 6,1,2,3,4 and 5. What’s the trend you would derive from simple linear regression? Or, if you don’t understand the phrase ‘linear regression’, just tell me what you think the trend is in that data.”

You are now in wide open trolling mode because the original discussion was all about whether a 10 year trend was a warming one or a cooling one.

Since you can’t rebute what I wrote.Concerning my link supported claim.That the 10 years in question was actually a cooling trend.Thus supporting the writers claim:

” we have not seen any global warming trend over the last 10 years”

as being correct.There is no warming and I further claimed that it is actually cooling.

You never rebutted it and that is a fact!

You go into this side issue about definitions.I will not bother falling for your obvious infantile and desperate crap.

It is obvious that YOU KNOW YOU WERE PROVEN WRONG!

“2. we have not seen any global warming trend over the last 10 years – here are the 10 year trends (1998-2007) in annual mean temperatures from the four most widely used global temperature measurements, with 9 year trends excluding the massive El Niño of 1998 in brackets. RSS: +0.02 (+0.27) °C/decade. UAH: +0.05 (+0.30) °C/decade. HadCRUT: +0.04 (+0.14) °C/decade. GISS: +0.18 (+0.30)°C/decade.”

Notice that the first line clearly makes a claim of NO warming trend in the last TEN YEARS.

“we have not seen any global warming trend over the last 10 years”

But troll post numbers that are wildly wrong and that he never posted the source to back them up.

“here are the 10 year trends (1998-2007) in annual mean temperatures from the four most widely used global temperature measurements, with 9 year trends excluding the massive El Niño of 1998 in brackets. RSS: +0.02 (+0.27) °C/decade. UAH: +0.05 (+0.30) °C/decade. HadCRUT: +0.04 (+0.14) °C/decade. GISS: +0.18 (+0.30)°C/decade.”

He argues that there has been a warming trend.Since I knew already that it is false and probably a deliberate distortion of the numbers ( I noticed that UAH numbers he posted is actually from the 1979-2007 trendline ).

I merely had the gall to contradict a supposed “scientist”.With a very different set of numbers.And by golly even gratitously posted a supporting link to them.

He has not once posted a counterpoint to it.He has not once stated that I was wrong in claiming that it is a cooling trend.

He then hypocritically right after posting false numbers writes:

“All those trends are positive.Your claim is a lie. Further, you obviously don’t understand the despite this, 10 years is not a long enough period over which to reliably calculate climate trends.”

One step at a time:

“All those trends are positive.” PROVEN FALSE

“Your claim is a lie.” HIS STATEMENT WAS PROVEN CORRECT.IT IS YOU WHO POSTED FALSE & UNSUPPORTED NUMBERS.

“Further, you obviously don’t understand the despite this, 10 years is not a long enough period over which to reliably calculate climate trends.”

CLASSIC STRAWMAN. HE NEVER CLAIMED THAT TEN YEARS WAS LONG ENOUGH.WHAT HE STATED and I quote: “we have not seen any global warming trend over the last 10 years”.

This is a statement of fact.He backed it up with a link to the chart that obviously shows a slight cooling trend ( http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html ).A statement I supported by posting a rebuttal to your false and unsupported numbers.Also by posting a link to give you the opportunity to make a counter.You never did and that is why what you are doing now is a classic mark of trolling.

What he is doing is commonly considered trolling since he has ever since then been trying to push me into side issues in his desperate attempt to get me to leave the main one.

The main issue is about a 10 year trend.He stated incorrectly that it was a warming trend.I corrected him by showing that it was actually a COOLING trend.

That is reality and there is nothing you can do about it since it is well shown in this comments thread.

That is what drives you wild.You were so easily and conclusively corrected with a link that supported the COOLING temperature trend fact.That the writer originally and correctly wrote stating this well supported fact:

“we have not seen any global warming trend over the last 10 years”

The original rebuttal was apparently irrefutable!

You really need to stop destroying yourself with your deliberate distortions and trolling bullshit.