but briefly: Deviations from the "inexorable upward trend in global temperatures" championed by Al Gore, most liberal politicians and the MSM are always useful.` The entire AGW theory is based on a correlation between rising global temps and rising atmospheric CO2 levels. The latter is fixed, so any deviation in the former deserves to be discussed, not dismissed with sophomoric name-calling and endless references to conservative political blogs.

Keep in mind that the "new data" you refer to represents one additional month of temperature readings. NASA now says this winter is the sixteenth warmest on record. To me that has little or no significance w/r/t the underlying issue of the degree of correlation between CO2 and global temps.

Again, remember that many people took Michael Mann's description of 1998 as "the hottest in the last skillion years" as case-closed proof of AGW. So the real point here is not that a single cold year is significant as much as it is that no single year is significant. In fact I linked in my old diary to a lengthy, detailed presentation by Dr. Mann himself on issues involving sample sizes and periods; here's the link again.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

here and elsewhere; you've participated in many of those discussions, and you and I have agreed on the most basic points. Why should I have to go over it all again in response to general claims about political blogs I don't even read?

Please consider my words carefully w/r/t the "facts are facts" issue. Nowhere did I say particular facts compel a result for or against AGW. I simply pipped Floater on the logically inconsistent phrase "wrong facts". Too picky of me? Maybe, but diaries titled like this one bring out the best in me.

On to the substance of your comment. Again, I thought the issue of a cold snap this past winter had been extensively discussed in this and in my earlier diary, but I'll repeat: saying last year was the coldest among the last sixteen months, seventy one and a half years, or whatever is as meaningless as saying 1998 was the hottest year in a millenium - oops, make that since the Medieval Warm Period.

I've also pointed out anomalies in the global temps as reflected in the Goddard graph (the only one linked to in this diary), without any response from the diarist. And I've also pointed out that the GISS chart is only one of four cited in my original diary, again without any response from the diarist.

Anyone reading the news knows that the AGW supporters have presented their case with great exaggeration and hyperbole, and have presented the very strong impression that global temps are rising inexorably - even the supposedly scholarly Scientific American claims "we're slowly roasting the Earth" in just one example from people who really should know better. In that context pointing out years that contradict the simple-minded escalator theory of global temp rise is useful, and can be fun.

As a scientist, I'm sure you fully understand the need to present data properly and in context, to present limitations, tolerance and margins of error w/r/t that data, and to be conservative in drawing conclusions from a limited number of data points. We also agree, I think, that the sensationalists, politicians and MSM have gone too far in terms of exaggerating the significance of relatively short-term temp changes. This time around it seems that politically oriented blogs seized on this information and blew it way out of proportion, but you know as well as I that the shoe almost always is on the other foot. Again, I am not remotely responsible for what gets published in those blogs and don't even read them, so why should I be called on to defend them?

I think the apparent differenced in our positions on the application of the scientific method to this issue is semantic rather than substantive. Keep in mind that my issue is not with long-term rising temperature trends, which clearly exist. I have said many times that my focus is on the "A" in AGW. I've laid out the bases for my skepticism at length in more than one diary. I'm not going to summarize then again here, except to point out that AGW theory assumes a correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 levels based on the Mauna Kea data, and rising global temperatures. Deviation of the latter from the former, like the multi-year periods I described below based on the NASA/Goddard temp data, should be pointed out and discussed, not shouted down. The pro-AGW press (mirrored by the occasional "stupid deniers" poster here) bears the lion's share of responsibility for the polarization and enmities that come up sooner or later any time this subject is discussed.

The AGW argument often ends in a somewhat grudging admission about discrepancies in the theories and data, coupled with the statement that we can't wait for compelling proof of the link before taking steps to significantly reduce CO2 production. I have said many times that I agree with that position, but that's a political decision, not a scientific conclusion.

This entire thread started with a simple link to an old, cold diary I posted a month ago. I have a limited attention span w/r/t old diaries, particularly in the context of a new diary from someone else that essentially says only that the last winter was the sixteenth coldest on record rather than the coldest in a hundred years. OK, fine. Next!

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Good on ya for finally checking a dictionary - next time I suggest consulting one before you post a comment to avoid embarrassment and the need for "Look over there - giant bumblebees just flew in my window!!" diversionary comments.

But on to your new argument. The quotation and link in my earlier diary were from Daily Tech. Your claim that that site is a political blog suggests terminal cluelessness. I'll repeat this for the umpteenth time hoping it will sink in: you read political blogs on AGW (else you wouldn't know what they're arguing) and I don't. Sorry to burst your Zeppelin, but those are the true facts.

Your failure to answer my questions about two representative books published on AGW suggests you haven't read them, meaning your blustery comments on the politics of AGW are those of a tyro.

Anyway, this whole thread started with a simple link by Jordan to an old diary of mine, one in which you argued the same windy (heh) points you're raising here. I responded to you there, as did others. If you want to rehash your old arguments, why not just link to your comments in that diary instead of dragging and dropping them here? The world has a limited supply of pixels, you know.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

including all the guys who actually supply the data i.e. NCDC, HadCRU, NASA GISS, RNIK, UC Boulder etc, together with the national meterological societies etc together with all the bureaucrats in it.

It is actually a pretty unque example of co-operation that other organisations, e.g. space exploration would do well to emulate.

It does represent a reasonable spread of opinion, e.g. NOAA scientists are more "skeptical" than NASA who are more "alarmist" to put names to the 2 error bars of the predictions.

Incidentally, Dr Mike Mann and Dr James Hansen remain well known and extremely well respected climatologists, especially among their peers, and continue to get published and discussed by their peers.

To read Steve McIntyre's more intemperate posters in CA, one gets the impression that Dr Mann and Dr Hansen are somehow completely discredited and tainted - well, that is not the opinion of their peers in the field. I notice Steve McIntyre doesn't himself make these claims, leaving it mostly to his commenters to do so. And his work is at least statistically exact unlike some of his associates like Mr Watts who regularly makes basic statistical errors and gets caught out.

In any case, the blog format is not the appropriate place for formal science records since blog posts are not peer reviewed.

That contradicts the notion that ice reductions are regional and balanced by higher precip elsewhere. And let's put it this way: a partial melt of the western Antarctic ice sheet could add 10 feet to global sea level. Even if AGW isn't the cause, something is, and it's worth flapping one's arms about.

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

Simply put

“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961

Why would I enjoy a sophomoric site from a power company lobbyist group? There are plenty of blatantly political, biased sites on both sides of the issue; why do you waste time with them?

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.