Yes, I did link to Watts - but rather, the point was to link to an article about edit wars at Wikipedia and the fact that the main editor warrior had been banned by Wikipedia, which he has (it was a 6 month I believe). There aren't many AGW sections at wikipedia that weren't edited by him.

Sorry, I meant 1940 to 1980, during the "global cooling" scare.

Did you watch the pea under the thimble?

The rate of warming over the last half of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole

That doesn't compare the first half with the second, it compares the second with the entire period. Given the stasis/cooling from 1930 to 1950, it's hardly surprising that this is the case. It also choses 1906 as the starting point and 2005 as the end point. Why? Presumably it's been edited by William Connolley.

You need a primer in confirmation and publication bias.

Are you saying CO2 is harmful to the biosphere? I think you're probably laughing because you're a lunatic.

I have an open mind about string theory because it hasn't generated any testable predictions and may well be unfalsifiable. AGW is similar, isn't it, so you've unwittingly chosen an excellent example with which to make my point.

Did you look at the graphs? Do you see any acceleration in the rate of change? Is there a greater rate of change between 1900 and 1940 as that between 1950 and 1990? No, there isn't.

Since 1850? That would imply their shrinkage is nothing to do with man-made CO2, wouldn't it?

I'm not arguing it isn't changing. It's always changing. Here's the Vostok graph and here's the Greenland graph. Notice anything?

Of course China are gearing up - they can make vast profits from gullible Western consumers like you.

I'm not sure what you mean by scientifically ignorant. It was Trenbreth, an IPCC lead scientist, who told us he would like to invert the hypothesis and null hypothesis in climate science. It was Michael Mann who used erroneous statistically "tricks" in his work. It was Keith Briffa who got a warming signal from one single tree at Yamal, carefully hidden in the data. It was Steig who erroneously smoothed Antarctic peninsula data across the whole continent. It was the IPCC who used WWF press releases in their so-called "scientific" reports. All of this was peer reviewed and press-released and trumpeted by you gullible idiots.

You are the one who needs a scientific education.

In short:

Satellite altimetry is somewhat unique in that many adjustments must be made to the raw range measurements to account for atmospheric delays (ionosphere, troposphere), ocean tides, variations in wave height (which can bias how the altimeter measures sea level), and a variety of other effects. In addition, the sea level measurements can be affected by the method used to process the altimeter waveforms, and by the techniques and data used to compute the orbit of the satellite. Early releases of the satellite Geophysical Data Records (GDRs) often contain errors in the raw measurements, the measurement corrections, and the orbit estimates." Nerem et al also mentions other major problems such as drift in the TOPEX microwave radiometer, a change from the original TOPEX altimeter to the back-up altimeter in 1999 "due to degradation in the original instrument" which had "different electronics" from the original resulting in divergent measurements which had to be "corrected'.

The term "peer review" used to be indicative of some kind of quality control. These days it simply means that your work has passed vetting by the warmists.

You seem pretty upset he made that comment. It doesn't make your side look very clever, does it?

That's one such argument, yes. I was only saying last week to my girlfriend that I felt like a serf!

But I the point I'm making is he's an activist who's proposed solution to the CO2 "problem" is to revert to a totalitarian system and then roll-back the industrial age. Of course people like him would be Disinterested Philosopher Kings (Plato) in his utopian world and people like you wouldn't get a vote, even though as you suggest, the vote is only a kind-of mob placebo in the grand scheme of things.

It can't be measured to that accuracy, and also it wouldn't surprise me if it's been "adjusted" - as so much is these days. In conclusion, it's probably bollocks.

No, a typical tactic of you warmongerers is to shoot the messenger. You're all very fond of arguments from authority, as long as you get to define what "authority" actually is.

How do you know they aren't shrinking entirely naturally, as they would have in any case?