Originally Posted by Earthling

Who cares, just read this and don't forget to

A Climate of Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions

A book by Andrew Farley and Katherine Hayhoe, published by Faithwords in 2009.

So you slag off Evangelical Christians when they are scientists, and praise them to skies if and only if they also deny climate change, like our old friend Dr Roy Spencer.

Shows how biased and prejudiced you are against anyone who dissents from your political agenda.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

I take that back ... it is not without merit and I have started to
look at sea level rise myself.

Use the data available at the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level
if you just look at Church & White data you won't get anything other
than the answers you already have.

I think you said you were Excel literate, but if I'm wrong about that,
don't hesitate to use Mr. Excel they help anybody and they provide
expert help free of charge within minutes.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

However, I do think it is simplistic, and you started with a bias
that you duly confirmed. "Confirmation bias" happens to us all.

Oh I have a bias alright, no doubt about it. So I have to ask myself,
"Is this really right?" before I post stuff. Sometimes I shoot from
the hip, but usually I try to provide a reference to something that
guys from your side of things aren't likely to dismiss out of hand.
NOAA comes to mind. It's best when the reference has actual data
that can be analyzed independently from what I've come up with.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Ok, my challenge to you is this: submit your work for peer review.

Well, that's not going to happen.

Regarding the deceleration of sea level rise I don't have to, the
guy who maintains the CU Sea Level Research Group's chart wrote
that pdf Power Point presentation I linked to a few month's back:

Why has an acceleration of sea level rise
not been observed during the altimeter era?

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

That is how scientific work gets evaluated.

Among scientists maybe, but in the public arena it's what the media
says that holds sway. I suppose you can argue that the peer reviewed
journals ARE media if you want.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Or even send it to Anthony Watts and see if he will post it online.

I have had a few things posted on some of the blogs. And I've had
some bloggers read stuff I write on forums and they've sent me e-mail
as a result [fan mail?] but it hasn't come to anything much.

Here's an interesting You Tube:

Climate Change In Presidential Debates Since 1988

Too bad a State of the Union montage hasn't been made,
I was thinking of the 2010 speech when President Obama
was laughed at when he brought up the topic.

More on the science, that at every turn is not cast iron in the least:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012...-in-the-night/

So of these two papers, Wigley2006 offers a climate sensitivity but fails to reconcile to the measured flux data. Soden2002 does seek to match the observed flux data but does not report on the implied climate sensitivity.

I am now sufficiently cynical about mainstream climate science to believe that the reason for the non-barking dogs in the two cases is the same. I will show that you cannot get a reasonable match to the flux and temperature data with a high [equilibrium climate sensitivity]. Wigley would have had to show a serious mismatch with the flux data, and Soden would have had to report and explain the politically incorrect, low, climate sensitivity implied by his match of the flux data.

The theory [models] just doesn't match real world observations and scientists who are supposed to relish finding such contradictions bury them instead.

Originally Posted by Trainwreck

The theory [models] just doesn't match real world observations and scientists who are supposed
to relish finding such contradictions bury them instead.

I'm not going to pretend I understand all the papers you referenced, but I do understand and can
concur that it looks like climate scientists pick and choose what corrections to make what ones to
ignore based on how it affects the theory.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

So it's "alarmist" even to write the word climate now?

Only when written by an alarmist.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

I take that back ... it is not without merit and I have started to look at sea level rise myself. However, I do think it is simplistic, and you started with a bias that you duly confirmed. "Confirmation bias" happens to us all.

Ok, my challenge to you is this: submit your work for peer review.

That is how scientific work gets evaluated. Or even send it to Anthony Watts and see if he will post it online.

Please point me to where your sea level rise work, or any of your work has been peer reviewed?

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

So you slag off Evangelical Christians when they are scientists, and praise them to skies if and only if they also deny climate change, like our old friend Dr Roy Spencer.

Show me where I've slagged off "Evangelical Christians," or praised them to the skies?
You have a vivid imagination, which you should urgently make a serious effort to contain.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Shows how biased and prejudiced you are against anyone who dissents from your political agenda.

Blah, blah, blah.

Originally Posted by Steve Case

Here's an interesting You Tube:

Climate Change In Presidential Debates Since 1988

Too bad a State of the Union montage hasn't been made,
I was thinking of the 2010 speech when President Obama
was laughed at when he brought up the topic.

I always thought Dubya was stupid and haven't changed my mind, but if nothing else, he at least got Glowbull warming right, probably by accident.

Originally Posted by Earthling

I always thought Dubya was stupid and haven't changed my mind,
but if nothing else, he at least got Glowbull warming right, probably
by accident.

Dubya has a mouth full of marbles, that's for sure, but he's not stupid.
He has several hundred hours flying military jets, that's not for dummies.

The U.S. media paints all Republicans as stupid. Surely you must
recognize that fact.