Well, you are right about one thing - you ought to be embarrassed. You b rought that embarrassment upon yourself. Please post a link to your blog so that we can check that you have posted the disclaimer: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false per our agreement.

Well, my time - even 5 minutes of it, is important, so let's make a deal: If I check your sources and find (a) That the citation your allege is NOAA's GHCN homogenization code is NOT in fact NOAA's code, and/or (b) NOAA's actual homogenization code is available from their ftp site, and was there prior to July 7th 2014, that you will amend the above statement as such:

I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false. Further, I made remarks concerning the work of Zeke Hausfather which might have impugned Mr Hausfather's motivation's, for which I apologize to him, and further, implied that NOAA had not released their homogenization code for GCHN 2.5 prior to July 2014 - a remark, which upon investigation, turned out to be false. I admit that I was wrong concerning these statements. You will post this statement at the beginning of any remarks you make on Slashdot on any climate related topic, and also on your blog, and cite that blog so that we can satisfy ourselves that you have acted as agreed.

Do we have a deal?

So, you agree with the following quotation from the nature article you cite as a source: Overall, the report cites more than 9,200 scientific papers, two-thirds of which have been published since 2007. There is now an overwhelming body of evidence, says Stocker, that the 1 C or so of global warming since the mid-nineteenth century is the result of human activity.

To quote from said paper:

The 2000s are by far the warmest decade on record (Figure 1). Before then the 1990s were the warmest decade on record.

and:

Deniers of climate change often cherry-pick points on time series and seize on the El Niño warm year of 1998 as the start of the 'hiatus' in global mean temperature rise (Figure 6). Cherry picking.... that would be what YOU are doing, would it not?

Is seems the paper you cite says in fact the opposite of what you assert, and is, in fact, saying exactly what I thought when this conversation started! How about that! You've made no ground in your efforts to convince me that global warming is a scam, and if anything, the links provided confirm the consensus position.

You're a failure.

Cite yourself providing links directly to the temperature data.

Nope, don't care what you think.

I take that as a yes.

USHCN methodology Last updated Oct 2013

GHCN methodologyLast updated 2009

Total time less than 5 minutes.

Now, where would be an appropriate place for your retraction? I suggest:

(1) On your blog

(2) That if you ever choose to post here again on a climate related topic, your remarks should start with this disclaimer.

Well, thanks for just making stuff up. Are you actually going to attempt to justify your statement There has been no warming for 17 years? Not that I should have to tell you what to do, but you might progress along this path if you cite a scientific paper which says this. (i.e 1996-2013) Don't imagine that you can bedazzle me with figures that you plucked out of your arse, mixed together with flawed methodology and then shaped into a cake for consumption, I'm not eating it. I don't accept assertions and distortions as proof. Cite.

So to summarise: the source you relied upon for your statement: there has been no warming for 17 years is in fact misrepresenting the facts. Got it.

You seem angry btw.

So, let's be clear. You are saying that if I look, I will not find a methodology for the homogenisation of longitudinal temperature data (i.e. USHCN v2.0 or v2.5 and GHCN) published prior to July 8th 2014?

My time is important. What should be my motivation for spending the time to look: Let's say, if I find a methodology, you will issue the following statement: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false.

Deal?

Also, I hate to speak out of school but there is no such controversy. There is chatter on the usual blogs, but this doesn't amount to controversy - bloggers don't get a seat at the science table. To do that, you need to use science, which, I have to say, I see is sorely lacking in both your arguments and the arguments of your peers and betters. Like as not, the scientific community probably didn't even notice these paranoid rantings.

This is not a debate. You are trying to convince me that your science (as yet unreferenced) is correct, and the 150 years of climate research which contradicts your assertions is wrong (for reasons, somehow, you have yet to begin explaining). Of course I know a deal about climate science (who would enter a discussion such as this if they were ignorant? Only a moron would do that!) , but I'm not under any obligation to dissemble the things I know or correct your ignorance should it raise it's head. Your ignorance it's your concern, not mine.

Let's test this assertion directly:

What model code NOAA publish on July 8th 2014?

Where did they publish this code?

Which climate model was the code written for?

Your feelings about my motivations are of no consequence.

This is your problem. You made the assertion, you prove it.

Not for you to judge, I'm afraid.

You can't read a graph, even when the graph includes all of the timeline you need? I guess that answers my question. You can't explain the continued warming post 1996, nor the fact that the period 1997-2013 was warmer than the period 1982-1996.

Why does this dataset start at 1997?

Do you even know how to formulate the required data to justify your assertion there has been no warming for 17 years?

That's GOLD. If I was trying to lampoon denialists and in their stupidity and ignorance, I couldn't write stuff as good as this.

You are basically telling us that over a decade long period models don't predict a statistical significant warming (given the range of measurement errors from current instruments). So if a decade passes and there is a detectable warming trend but it is not statistically significant, this to your mind means the models are wrong? Are you for real? Is this a joke? Are you pretending to hold this point of view for our amusement?

I can't even begin to articulate how stupid that sounds.

Doesn't seem to be any need: To quote the very article you cite as proof that global warming is a sham:

Overall, the report cites more than 9,200 scientific papers, two-thirds of which have been published since 2007. There is now an overwhelming body of evidence, says Stocker, that the 1 C or so of global warming since the mid-nineteenth century is the result of human activity.

...

Claims that there might be something fundamentally wrong with climate models are unjustified unless "temperature were to remain constant for the next 20 years", he says.

I'll refer to you very own cite to conclude that your claims that there is something fundamentally wrong with climate models are unjustified.

You seem to be pinning your hopes on your readers not exercising any reading comprehension. Your hope is vain.

Tut Tut Tut. Naughty naughty!

You said:I'd like to know more, but it's up to the NOAA to explain what adjustments were made, why they were made, and what algorithms they used. So far they have not been forthcoming. I would like to be able to scrutinize their work, but I can't. I would like to try to repeat their work, but I can't. You said that here. Don't lie, and especially don't tell stupid lies. It's very unbecoming and makes us doubt all of your OTHER unevidenced assertions.

You seem angry.

You blame others for your own ignorance. In fact, your ignorance of the function and efficacy of climate models, and the methodology behind them, is entirely your fault, and your affair. You assertion that NOAA kept some methodology (for what? when? why?) private is entirely unevidenced.

I've repeatedly noted that the "science" in question, which is the science behind your assertions, is unevidenced and therefore not science. Your allegation is frankly bizarre.

Tut Tut Tut.

Naughty Naughty!

You said there has been no warming for the last 17 years.

I suspect you don't even know what HADCRUT4 is. Unfortunately for you, I do. And unfortunately for your argument, the actual temperature data is readily available, and your argument, such as it is, has already been repeatedly debunked - heck, I've debunked it myself.

Please indicate on this graph of temperatures how there has been no warming from 1996-2014 (compared to the previous 14 years 1982-1996).

Well, be sure to record on your blog your most recent discoveries

(a) That there is in fact a methodology underpinning the collation of of temperature data (contrary to your previous statements)

(b) That you cannot describe any issue with NOAAs climate methodologies , but you are angry that NOAA did not see fit to share their methodology with you personally so that you wouldn't be forced to google for it. Perhaps if you speak eloquently concerning your anger, a helpful poster will give you some hints on better ways to channel your anger.

(c) Be sure also to include your theory on how the scientific community actually thinks that warming ceased 17 years ago, based on a single word you plucked from a single article in nature, and in contrast to what the actual temperature data tells us. I'm sure that the scorn expressed by various parties is really just respect (in disguise) at your undoubted brilliance,

How many of the people (denialists) who post in climate change related articles is actually you? You accidently logged in using a different account, I'm wondering - how many accounts would you manage for a slip up like that to occur? How many posts per day?

Looks to me like you accidently logged in using one of your other fake accounts. Are you paid to shill for just oil companies or are you generally for hire?

Are you the same poster I was just interrogating?

Do you use 2 or more accounts to game Slashdot's moderation system?

Well, feel free to not use any of the things developed from scientific advances. I hear that caves are comfortable year round, and herbs and grasses picked from the mountainside can make a fine salad!

(a) Did you, or did you not say "I'd like to know more, but it's up to the NOAA to explain what adjustments were made, why they were made, and what algorithms they used. So far they have not been forthcoming. "

(b) Did you, or did you not, say: "It appears the methodology and code have [...] been made available"

(c) Did you, or did you not, say (a), and then (b), thus retracting statement (a) by statement (b).

Answers parts a,b AND c.

Safe then for me to assume that there is no problem with their methodology since nobody, to my knowledge, has described any problems with it.

And if I turn you fine sounding (if empty) rhetoric upside down and look at it's dirty underbelly I see written: "I don't care what the science says, I'm scared of change so I don't want to do anything", which is of course, the argument that underpins denialism. There has been an ongoing attempt by a sub-section of that group an attempt to calve off from the main and establish a new rhetoric "a plague on both your houses" and leave behind the old standards "there has been no warming for 15 years", "models got it wrong", "CO2 is good for plants", "It's the sun!" , "It's the Moon!", "It's Zeus!" etc, the use of which now guarantees only derisive laughter.

None of these arguments, new or old (the new one, of course, being there to blame SCIENCE for being right all along), are the actual reason why no action is being taken. The reason is that governments, and their sponsors (in this case, established elements of the fossil fuel industry and power generation industry) don't want to change.

If the obvious issue of climate change can't overcome the inertia (that is, the supporters of those technologies refuse to change even to the point that their refusal is endangering millions of lives and impoverishing billions yet to come), then minor, less justifiable reasons will not get them to change.

Errr. A few dozen bloggers and paid shills on the internet can't actually convert an established scientific theory from a fact into a fictional bogeyman. Sorry, but we don't live in a world of magic. This video summarises the actual debate better than anything I have seen for a while.

The reason is there is virtually no-one else. Judith Curry, albeit better trained, is just a rhetorical shell over a person who actually thinks the climate is warming, she's useless to that cause. Roy Spencer is under a cloud (after the 'lensing' incident), Monkton is a clown , Richard Muller changed his mind and now accepts the consensus opinion, as (to a large extent) has Bjorn Lomberg.

Only the weatherman blogger fights on, bravely upheld by his salary from the Heartland institute.

So, in fact, you have no idea what the impacts of dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere might be? (Ahem) Quelle surprise.

Then of course, as a consequence your baseless and un-evidenced assertions that 150 years of climate science must be wrong because because o! please I pinky swear! sounds about as believable as a guy who claims that there are no owls, that owls are a conspiracy theory established by biologists in days of yore to milk money from the citizenry. I see no reason for me to believe it. Can you provide a single, reason for me to believe this fairytale?

Well, it's your theory. Feel free to curl up and die at the hopelessness of it if you so desire. None of which will impact what the rest of us plan to do, of course.

I don't read conspiracy blogs penned by lunatics.

warmer and warmer and warmer until it's too hot to live?

So, based on the current models of feedback, what precise percentage atmospheric CO2 concentration is required to trigger this "runaway" feedback? What are the feedbacks in question?

It's not my job to educate you on these things, but obviously feedback mechanisms are generally limited: ice reflects sunlight, so melting the ice creates a positive feedback, but there is no more ice to melt the feedback ceases. Melting permafrost triggers the clathrate gun, punching methane into the system - but once all the methane trapped in the permafrost has escapes into the atmosphere, feedback from the escaping methane ceases.

I say 'generally' because of course, you would not have entered into this conversation without a detailed knowledge of what feedback mechanisms can trigger runaway warming, having modelled these yourself in detail.

So what are these 'runaway' mechanisms?

Science says so. You don't get to question it, unless you come armed with BETTER science.