"Lol. So you're admitting Co2 isn't as strong a climate forcing as 'other factors'. Yet the IPCC (Who you hold up as the primary authority on matters climatic) don't even include these 'other factors' in their AR4 report."
Rog, you are truly starting to offend me with the way you misrepresent what I have said. No kidding. Pardon me for calling a spade a spade, but you are being annoying. Don't try to claim that you were just trying to get my goat again, either.
Show me where I have held up the IPCC as my primary authority. Hmm? Where? I showed you where you had endorsed Scenario A, after all, despite your denials. (I know, I know- deny it enough and people will believe you.)
YOU, Rog, keep bringing up the IPCC, apparently because it is your little pet target, and you love to rant about it. So stop blaming me for bringing it up. I have been avoiding discussing the IPCC to date because I get greater gratification from discussing primary sources. But since YOU did bring it up, I will note that the IPCC reports are possibly the most intensively peer-reviewed scientific documents in existence and your insistence that it is some mechanism of deception on the part of governments is puerile conspiracy-ism. The reports are full of equivocations that try to express the scientific uncertainty in their findings. The reports use plain language such as "probably" and "almost certainly" so that it is readable by non-scientists, but they do define those terms as approximate percentages for anyone who cares to look it up. (See page 27 of the AR4 report.) The report specifically points out climate variables that HAVEN'T changed. These compare very favorably with the theology-like certainty presented by your skeptic camp, as well as seeming much more scientific. The skeptics, after all, seem to start with a conclusion then try to find random bits of data to support it.
But I understand why you must attack the IPCC report. It is, after all, very damning against your position.
On the subject of scientific uncertainty, I would like to point out for other readers a common political strategy- Those who wish to undermine the strength of global warming theory often try to present any scientific finding in which there is uncertainty as fatally flawed. This is not true. ALL scientific findings deal with uncertainty. There is uncertainty involved in merely taking a measurement! However, the skeptics present such uncertainty as overwhelming, which it is not. Political forces then try to appear rational and fair by "encouraging discussion" in which both scientists and skeptics are misleadingly given equal weight. They then present a picture of a lack of scientific consensus, based upon their artificially produced appearance of discord in the scientific community. Obviously, this is a successful political strategy. (Because, Lord knows, their scientific strategy sucks...)
In fact, scientific consensus about this issue is staggering, and any lack of consensus is absolutely blown out of proportion by people like Rog who, you will note, still can't name a reputable scientific organization that will back him. :-) If there was really any huge discord or lack of consensus, he would produce such an organization. Instead, the best he can do is rant about some sort of scientific conspiracy to get grant money. Amusing.
My "admission" that other factors force climate is old hat, Rog. I have said several times that CO2 isn't the only factor forcing climate. Yes, to reassure you, the Earth gets a lot of it's heat from the sun. WOW! Run with that admission, Rog. Milk it for all you can get! But there is no solar activity that is covariant with current climate warming, so your solar arguments are very weak. On the other hand, CO2 is covariant with warming. Greenhouse gasses DO have an effect no matter how much you try to trivialize or dismiss them, they are significant, and human activity is affecting them. I reiterate my 10-year challenge. How much do you want to bet? Pick a figure, Rog! I'm happy to take your money. (Put it in Euros, please. The dollar sucks, currently...)
"A horizontal line looks horizontal no matter what vertical scale you use"
True. And a non-horizontal line, like the one you presented, WILL look horizontal if you choose a large enough scale. (Or start it in a carefully selected spot, like 1998).) Your scale is huge and starts in 1998, and thus makes that non-horizontal line look horizontal. It is thus misleading. QED.
You just keep bleating your same weak arguments and trying, as you have essentially admitted, to present empiricism as fact.
And the TRUTH, despite your declarations to the contrary, is that the IPCC does mention other climate forcings in their most recent consensus statement. See chapter 2, specifically section 2.4:
Much of the chapter dwells on CO2 and other GHGs, since the paper is about climate CHANGE and they need to discuss it in depth to support their conclusion, but it also mentions cloud albedo, solar irradiance, etc. Specifically, figure 2.4. You could argue that figure 2.5 deals with this subject as well, by way of showing that models of only natural forcings do not explain current warming.
So, has your check from Exxon arrived yet?