A chance for Ludo to actually answer the question,,,,,,

[dickymint]

Is there a visible human signal in global climate (temperature) data with established cause-and-effect to carbon dioxide? Yes or no?

No references required, no quotes required, just a simple yes or no please.

[Jalopnik]

Sorry, nothing to contribute, just an excuse to use a smiley I've not used before...

[Jasandjules]

Seems keen to post on nearly every other AGW thread, wonder why this one has been missed.

Ludo?

[ludo]

Jasandjules said:

Seems keen to post on nearly every other AGW thread, wonder why this one has been missed.

Ludo?

Possibly because (a) I have answered this point many times and am bored with the attrition loop (b) I have pointed out that a good answer to the question is given in recent articles on skepticalscience.com, so you could always go and read them, and (c) I have already stated several times that I am happy to move onto that next (yet again) if we can get an agreement on whether the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic (although a simple bit of accountancy show that it clearly is), and I don't want to be diverted onto other issues when no progress is possible until more basic issues are dealt with.

[tegwin]

NO... I have seen nothing conclusive...ever...atall....



My theory is, yes we are contributing minorly, but the main factor is the natural "warming and cooling" of the earth which has been proven to occur on a cycle..... and amazingly, we are due a change in temperature any time soon... the geology evidence proves this!

[grumbledoak]

I've never seen any evidence of this. Expect ludo to bluster and shift the argument elsewhere like a politician with Paxman.

Ask him again!

[macp]

How did I end up in here.

Goes back to concentrate and improve on that walking & breathing thing.

[convert]

ludo said:

Jasandjules said:

Seems keen to post on nearly every other AGW thread, wonder why this one has been missed.

Ludo?

Possibly because (a) I have answered this point many times and am bored with the attrition loop (b) I have pointed out that a good answer to the question is given in recent articles on skepticalscience.com, so you could always go and read them, and (c) I have already stated several times that I am happy to move onto that next (yet again) if we can get an agreement on whether the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic (although a simple bit of accountancy show that it clearly is), and I don't want to be diverted onto other issues when no progress is possible until more basic issues are dealt with.

[Paxman] So is that a yes, or a no? [/Paxman]

[B Oeuf]

ludo said:

Jasandjules said:

Seems keen to post on nearly every other AGW thread, wonder why this one has been missed.

Ludo?

Possibly because (a) I have answered this point many times and am bored with the attrition loop (b) I have pointed out that a good answer to the question is given in recent articles on skepticalscience.com, so you could always go and read them, and (c) I have already stated several times that I am happy to move onto that next (yet again) if we can get an agreement on whether the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic (although a simple bit of accountancy show that it clearly is), and I don't want to be diverted onto other issues when no progress is possible until more basic issues are dealt with.

Never mind, once this nonsense falls flat on it's arse there's a promising career in Politics for you old chap

[ludo]

convert said:

ludo said:

Jasandjules said:

Seems keen to post on nearly every other AGW thread, wonder why this one has been missed.

Ludo?

Possibly because (a) I have answered this point many times and am bored with the attrition loop (b) I have pointed out that a good answer to the question is given in recent articles on skepticalscience.com, so you could always go and read them, and (c) I have already stated several times that I am happy to move onto that next (yet again) if we can get an agreement on whether the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic (although a simple bit of accountancy show that it clearly is), and I don't want to be diverted onto other issues when no progress is possible until more basic issues are dealt with.

[Paxman] So is that a yes, or a no? [/Paxman]

have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no?

Some questions cannot be properly answered by a simple yes or no, try reading the articles at scepticalscience.com. Essentially the answer is "yes there is a visible signal", and "no, there is not an unequivocal signal". The second part is because CO2 is not the only forcing that affects the climate, and there is considerable variability in the data due to things like ENSO, so any argument you care to make will depend on the validity of assumptions made about the variability and the other forcings.

Asking a simple question that can only be answered accurately with a complicated answer is a good trick in a rhetorical debate. Having said which, Paxman was right as the question he asked Howard could be answered honstly and accurately by simply saying "yes, I did threaten to overrule him", it is just that Howard couldn't bring himself to admit it (at least explicitly), but was honest enough not to give a direct lie (which shows promise for a politician!).

[chris watton]

I take it that's a no, then?

........

[Get Karter]

chris watton said:

I take it that's a no, then?

........

What, you've not stopped beating your wife?


I'm getting confused.

Edited by Get Karter on Wednesday 14th October 11:48

[ludo]

chris watton said:

I take it that's a no, then?

........

yes go ahead, if you want to ignore what I actually said and go for a politician-style soundbite instead!

ETA Get Karters response was funnier, I should learn not to bother responding to those that are not actually interested in the answer to the question asked

Edited by ludo on Wednesday 14th October 11:49

[convert]

ludo said:

have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no?

Some questions cannot be properly answered by a simple yes or no, try reading the articles at scepticalscience.com. Essentially the answer is "yes there is a visible signal", and "no, there is not an unequivocal signal". The second part is because CO2 is not the only forcing that affects the climate, and there is considerable variability in the data due to things like ENSO, so any argument you care to make will depend on the validity of assumptions made about the variability and the other forcings.

Asking a simple question that can only be answered accurately with a complicated answer is a good trick in a rhetorical debate. Having said which, Paxman was right as the question he asked Howard could be answered honstly and accurately by simply saying "yes, I did threaten to overrule him", it is just that Howard couldn't bring himself to admit it (at least explicitly), but was honest enough not to give a direct lie (which shows promise for a politician!).

Sorry old chap, but there's a world of difference in asking for a Yes / No answer re the man made signal, and the leading question bullst re my wife (PS she likes being beaten, but not as much as your old lady; well the last time I shagged her she said she liked it rough, but you weren't man enough )

I'll take the rest of your waffle as a 'Don't know' shall I?

[chris watton]

ludo said:

chris watton said:

I take it that's a no, then?

........

yes go ahead, if you want to ignore what I actually said and go for a politician-style soundbite instead!

ETA Get Karters response was funnier, I should learn not to bother responding to those that are not actually interested in the answer to the question asked

Edited by ludo on Wednesday 14th October 11:49

You are right, I am not, to be absolutely honest, particularly interested in MMGW/CC, much less so in reading reams of ‘faux science’

...But then, I am not paid to be interested in ‘The Lie’, as Cyrus the Great would put it......

Edited by chris watton on Wednesday 14th October 11:58

[Odie]

dickymint said:

Is there a visible human signal in global climate (temperature) data with established cause-and-effect to carbon dioxide? Yes or no?

No references required, no quotes required, just a simple yes or no please.

No

The whole solar system is warming up on its regular cycle. CO2 cannot effect other planets in our solar system.

[ludo]

Odie said:

dickymint said:

Is there a visible human signal in global climate (temperature) data with established cause-and-effect to carbon dioxide? Yes or no?

No references required, no quotes required, just a simple yes or no please.

No

The whole solar system is warming up on its regular cycle. CO2 cannot effect other planets in our solar system.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-oth...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pluto-global-warmi...

I don't think there are reliable observations of Uranus though!

[Eric Mc]

How can we measure remotely the warming or cooling of a planet tens (even hundreds) of millions of miles away?

[ZondaMark]

ludo said:

convert said:

ludo said:

Jasandjules said:

Seems keen to post on nearly every other AGW thread, wonder why this one has been missed.

Ludo?

Possibly because (a) I have answered this point many times and am bored with the attrition loop (b) I have pointed out that a good answer to the question is given in recent articles on skepticalscience.com, so you could always go and read them, and (c) I have already stated several times that I am happy to move onto that next (yet again) if we can get an agreement on whether the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic (although a simple bit of accountancy show that it clearly is), and I don't want to be diverted onto other issues when no progress is possible until more basic issues are dealt with.

[Paxman] So is that a yes, or a no? [/Paxman]

have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no?

Some questions cannot be properly answered by a simple yes or no, try reading the articles at scepticalscience.com. Essentially the answer is "yes there is a visible signal", and "no, there is not an unequivocal signal". The second part is because CO2 is not the only forcing that affects the climate, and there is considerable variability in the data due to things like ENSO, so any argument you care to make will depend on the validity of assumptions made about the variability and the other forcings.

Asking a simple question that can only be answered accurately with a complicated answer is a good trick in a rhetorical debate. Having said which, Paxman was right as the question he asked Howard could be answered honstly and accurately by simply saying "yes, I did threaten to overrule him", it is just that Howard couldn't bring himself to admit it (at least explicitly), but was honest enough not to give a direct lie (which shows promise for a politician!).

Would this visible signal be anything more than the correlations you're so eager to point out all the time?

[ludo]

ZondaMark said:

ludo said:

convert said:

ludo said:

Jasandjules said:

Seems keen to post on nearly every other AGW thread, wonder why this one has been missed.

Ludo?

Possibly because (a) I have answered this point many times and am bored with the attrition loop (b) I have pointed out that a good answer to the question is given in recent articles on skepticalscience.com, so you could always go and read them, and (c) I have already stated several times that I am happy to move onto that next (yet again) if we can get an agreement on whether the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic (although a simple bit of accountancy show that it clearly is), and I don't want to be diverted onto other issues when no progress is possible until more basic issues are dealt with.

[Paxman] So is that a yes, or a no? [/Paxman]

have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no?

Some questions cannot be properly answered by a simple yes or no, try reading the articles at scepticalscience.com. Essentially the answer is "yes there is a visible signal", and "no, there is not an unequivocal signal". The second part is because CO2 is not the only forcing that affects the climate, and there is considerable variability in the data due to things like ENSO, so any argument you care to make will depend on the validity of assumptions made about the variability and the other forcings.

Asking a simple question that can only be answered accurately with a complicated answer is a good trick in a rhetorical debate. Having said which, Paxman was right as the question he asked Howard could be answered honstly and accurately by simply saying "yes, I did threaten to overrule him", it is just that Howard couldn't bring himself to admit it (at least explicitly), but was honest enough not to give a direct lie (which shows promise for a politician!).

Would this visible signal be anything more than the correlations you're so eager to point out all the time?

you could go and read the articles at skepticalscience.com and find out. As I said, I am bored with the attrition loop, I have answered it so many times that it is now apparent that it is just an atempt to deflect me away from the issue of the source of the rise in CO2 levels.