Rog, you used the religion analogy long before I did in this debate- we can all go look back through the posts. I maintain that the deniers' position more closely resembles an article of faith than that of the GHG camp. Also I have stated that I am 80% sure of GHG forcing as a significant effect, but you certainly seem 100% certain of your position, which smells more of faith as well. If I had called you a "heretic" you would have more of a case... :-)
And if you had really meant the whole MS Paint commentary to be friendly, well, then I'm a jackass. My bad. I didn't get that impression, especially after I gave my voluminous disclaimer in an attempt to fend off all of the petty objections that I could see coming. And I'm going to be the last guy to cry about calling politicians names, but in my defense I did merely say that you were "coming across" as a zealot. I was trying to hint that your arguments will be taken more seriously by everyone (including me) if you cease the puerile name-calling. Actually, it sounds more like the old communist propaganda, doesn't it? "Capitalist running-dogs!" etc. This is why you have never heard me engaging in snippy name-calling against the folks who run junkscience.org and other denier blogs. It makes one look like a child and, except for the other True Believers who are behaving equally childishly, everyone ignores what one is saying. The other True Believers already agree with you, Rog.
"Anyway, thanks for agreeing that solar forcing/internal variation is stronger than co2 forcing."
I never disagreed with this, Rog. Once again you are trying to claim that I said something ridiculous, so that you can "seem" to disprove me. Actually, you keep claiming this over and over about the same subject, i.e. solar forcing, the existance of which i have never disputed. The Earth gets it's heat from the sun. Duh. HOWEVER, the direct solar component has not been changing in a way that adequately explains the temperature rise in the last century. On the other hand, GHGs have been, thus indirectly leading to better retention of that solar heating. Also duh.
"Are you aware that global sea level average has fallen for the last two years?"
Are YOU aware that the Antarctic is having such a heat wave that crews are shedding their clothes to keep cool?? www.stuff.co.nz/4326380a11.html
See, I can make random claims with little scientific meaning, too. So that's my "informative, interesting, and illuminating snippet", of the same quality as those that you keep posting. But, egad, I can't believe that you finally got me to stoop to that level.
Remember how I learned to spell "egad" a few pages ago? :-)
"Going back to what you said about the bouys giving colder than expected readings. Has it occured to you that this might be because the oceans are getting cooler"
Has it occured to you that changing instumentation is bad science precisely because it leads to systematic errors? Actually, you cited the systematic error issue with some of the air temperature data. I can only assume that your objection to the bouy correction is rooted in some other cause. Who is dismissing data that doesn't fit their model, now, Rog? So, when you compare the ship readings and the buoy readings in the same place and time and discover that the buoy readings are always a little colder then, no, I would not say that this was because the oceans are miraculously cooler in the 6 feet of water surrounding the buoy. Actually. No kidding. Some systemic error is going on with one of the two readings. And either way that you correct for it you get more net warming in the data. And even with the error in place the oceans are not getting cooler- they are merely warming at a tiny fraction less precipitous of a rate.
"the bouys must be faulty because our preferred computer model says the oceans should be getting warmer"
"in the case of global temperature data as secretly manipulated and presented by Jim Hansen"
You're sounding quite zealous, again, Rog. This response of yours is truly getting old. It is one of your stock answers to findings that you don't like- 'The Vast Environmental Conspiracy is at it again!' And even if we ignore the buoy error the data STILL says warming- a very small fraction less of it, but still warming. And, I refer you to my previous paragraph viz dismissing data that doesn't fit your worldview.
And as matter of fact, yes, testing models is a part of "science". If data and model predictions don't fit, you investigate. Usually, you find an error or a bad assumption in your model that you can correct. (This is how our climate models keep getting better, Rog, rather than just tossed out because you don't like them.) But occasionally you find a data collection error, such as switching instrumentation.
And what are you doing denying warming, anyway ??? You have agreed that there is warming !!! Arrgh!!! I'm pulling my hair out trying to understand you, Rog! Maybe I should just accept that your irrationality is inherently different than my irrationality, and go have a beer...
"Loess lines are marginally better than straight trend lines in that they do at least give some clue to the acceleration AND DECELERATION of trends"
Well, I'm glad that you agree that Loess lines are only good for analyzing the change in slope over short trends. Whew! (Sorry, I had to throw that solar forcing jibe back at you... :-)
"the satellite measurements and HADcrut agree that this year is colder than 1980"
I don't care if this year is colder than 1980. Or 1862, 1492, or 1066. That's my point. You can't pick any two years you like, compare them, and make bold assertions about long-term trends as you are. (Or choose an arbitrarily short period.) Unless you are willing to let me play, too. For example: Gee, last year was warmer than 1900. What does that mean? Answer: Alone, it means nothing! I'm trying to look at ALL relevent data. You will reply that the paleoclimate data is relevent, too. I will then AGREE, that it deserves rational consideration. But we have been over this ad nauseum, and we disagree on conclusions about it. I am willing to let it go at that.
"I suggest we do so without wasting space criticising each others contributions"
Of course, Rog. But by proposing that we stop sniping at one another you have claimed the right of last snipe. How gracious of you. :-) Also of course, I'm not sure how to resolve this, as leaving me with the last snipe is probably just as annoying to you. Perhaps we could both try to post a truly saccharine-sweet post for the next round and end on a good note? Actually, we tried to do that a while ago, didn't we, and it didn't work...
To get back to something I started to say a couple of paragraphs ago: I have said on many occasions that you have many points that are worth considering, and that I may be able to weaken but cannot yet dismiss. (Actually, after your challange on page 1 I read more about the Azolla event and ancient glaciations and I now know much more on the subject- including that the Earth *probably* had at least two snowball phases before Azolla.)
I am willing to disagree with you about the strength or meaning of your points, and the conclusions that we reach. I'm willing to stop! Really! But if you keep popping up and posting stuff that I think is bollox, I'm going to call you on it, ESPECIALLY if you call me out by name. What do you expect?!? I admit that the last time it was you trying to stop instead of me (unlike the prior times) and I got prissy about it. I still don't think that I was totally unjustified, but I did get prissy.
I apologize. I should have been a better man and let things end then. Because we can certainly go back and forth about this until the (very warm :-) end of time.