Actually, I said it was a test, but not a "good test". Go back and read it.
If you're asserting it's not a "good test", then what does it matter? You found a test AGW failed. Can you find tests it *hasn't* failed? :)
Also, I said 20 years does not a decadal trend make.
No, to quote you *exactly*, you said, "Less than two decades doesn't make a trend."
Two decades (20 years), last time I checked, is *not* less than 2 decades. Perhaps you count years differently? :) Or perhaps you weren't done defining "a trend"? Like Duane Gish, you left yourself some wiggle room - the statement "less than two decades doesn't make a trend" is logically compatible with "less than 31 years doesn't make a trend".
So, in your definition, does a decadal trend take 21 years? 22 years? 30 years? 100 years? Care to be precise at all, or will you continue to Gish Gallop away from actually *defending your argument*? :)
Also, I said we'd swing back to the last 20 years... and do the regression ourselves together.
So, are you now insisting that I can't just find *any* 20 year, statistically insignificant warming trend within the industrial age, but it has to be specifically cherry picked to the *last* 20 years?
Look, I showed you the data: http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...
Are you going to argue that the dataset isn't proper? Is that the ad hoc special pleading you have left? :)
Here, from MSU.RSS, the last 20 years, minus 3 months (perhaps you'd be so generous as to grant me three months of reprieve from your cherry pick). :
Temperature Anomaly trend
Feb 1993 to Dec 2013
CI from -0.105 to 1.823;
Temp range 0.110C to 0.289C
Statistically insignificant warming trend.
Look, if you want to argue your point (A) further, you've got to make a stand and argue with the data, or limit your specification of what AGW *precludes* with more ad hoc special pleadings. Do yourself a favor, and instead of gish galloping away, just pick one of the data sets that hasn't reached 20 years of statistically insignificant warming, and insist that *that* is your gold standard. At least then we can agree that you've come up with a test that hasn't been falsified yet - and we can come back to why we should cherry pick a dataset for your test after you've gone through more points :)
"She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents."
I've given you my objection, and I've given you at least *one* fairly defensible way out (pick your preferred dataset, and be prepared to defend it against the ones you don't like). You can either continue dodging specificity, or you can stake your (A) claim on a specific dataset, and move onto B. I've given you the data for trends, so go ahead, pick the one you think is the most favorable to your cause.
The count is forty-five now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at eighteen for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?