Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) also showed that when the influences of solar and volcanic activity and the El Niño Southern Oscillation are removed from the temperature data, the warming trend in the NCDC data shown in the updated Escalator is 0.175 +/- 0.012°C per decade. Quite simply, contrary to Briggs’ claims, the warming trend is much larger than the uncertainty in the data. In fact, when applying the Foster and Rahmstorf methodology, the global warming trend in each of the major data sets is statistically significant since 2000, let alone 1940.

Ultimately Briggs completely misses the point of The Escalator.

“…just as the WSJ‘s scientists claim, we can’t say with any certainty that the temperatures have been increasing this past decade.”

This is a strawman argument. The claim was not that we can say with certainty that surface temperatures have increased over the past decade (although global heat content has). The point is that focusing on temperatures over the past decade (as the fake skeptics constantly do) is pointless to begin with, and that we should be examining longer, statistically significant trends.

Briggs’ post was of course hailed by the usual climate denial enablers (i.e. here and here), despite the rather obvious inflation of the data uncertainty, and utter lack of support for that inflation. Despite the fake skeptic struggles to go the wrong way down, The Escalator unfortunately continues ever-upward.

Can you say “cooling”?

Ad hominem fallacies aren’t always as obvious as “you’re an idiot, so you’re wrong”. Asserting that someone is wrong because they have ulterior motives for making a claim is still an ad hominem fallacy – you’re playing the man, not the ball.

It’s similar to someone saying, for example, “You just believe in God because you’re afraid of dying.” That may well be the case, but it has no bearing on the strength or validity of that person’s arguments for God’s existence.

Here is an example of ad hominem attack, from climate liar, cha”

“Fuck Yeah, as with the moon landings, Bilderberg, the second shooter and the Illuminati, the anti-Christ led Marxist liberal one world UN sponsored CC conspiracy being foisted upon an unknowing sheepulace is so well constructed that only a select all knowing un-sheeply few can see the truthiness.”

See the difference ?

Studies have revealed that the biggest predictor of belief in AGW is a persons political leaning. Nothing at all to do with knowledge of science.

Why can’t cha, luc, mm etc, just be honest and say they hate capitalism, or want to protect the environment?. Why cant they just be honest about their real motives ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Its only the Progressive political class that still push the propaganda

Studies have revealed that the biggest predictor of belief in AGW is a persons political leaning. Nothing at all to do with knowledge of science.

Why can’t cha, luc, mm etc, just be honest and say they hate capitalism, or want to protect the environment?. Why cant they just be honest about their real motives ?

Too dumb to get it that you were having the piss taken out of you ?

Your really pretty green if that is what you think.

Gosh, the ignorant communist thug Cha actually comes out and says something in his own words for once, and of course, its a lie.

Its not any kind of “few.”

The predominant public opinion now as shown by so many public polls is that GW is a scam.

Its only the Progressive political class that still push the propaganda, and their influence is fast dwindling as their Potemkin village burns faster every day.

During the Jurassic period, CO2 levels in the atmosphere were in the neighborhood of 1,950 ppm – five times the concentration of today’s modest 385 ppm. During that period, the earth flourished in the fertile embrace of life-giving CO2.

Now here is where it gets interesting. When we burn fossil fuels we are only returning co2 to the atmosphere. We are not creating new co2. Of course sensible people understand that this tiny contribution (of co2) is unlikely to even be detectable, in terms of climate change.

cha, keep up the personal attack and lies. The more alarmists, who show their true character, the better it is for those of us who value truth.

“What is the difference between a duck ?”

And the truthiness is unlimited funding for academia!.

This idiot refers to his own post @ 8.52 truly pathetic.

Hey Griff, why not demand an answer to the question, “How long is a piece of string ?”

Why not demand an answer to, “Yeah but, why is a mouse if it flies ?”

Then, when you don’t recieve a sattisfactory answer you can crow about how you won the argument.

Moron.

All major scientific bodies.

The governments of most of the world.

Including all the developed countries.

Everyone is well past, is it happening or not?

Griff, more people believe in God, than AGW. Far more. Does that make God real ?

If not, why ?

Of course your lying too. “Everyone” clearly does not believe in AGW. You also fail to address the issue that your sources are paid billions to produce “studies” that support the AGW fraud. Wow, pay me that sort of money and I might “believe” in AGW too.

No it is our government.

The UN .

All major scientific bodies.

The governments of most of the world.

Including all the developed countries.

Everyone is well past, is it happening or not? They just cannot agree on how the cuts in co2 will come.