Richard,
You were asked why choosing 1998 as an initial year for discontinued warming was not cherry-picking while choosing any other year in a 10 year period constitutes cherry picking.
You did not answer.
Then I summarised my previous explanation of my own view as to why 1998 is the correct date.
Your summary follows,
The warmest year was 1998 (i.e. after 1995) and the most recent warming was a warming phase of 60-year-cycle that could be expected to end around year 2000.
That does not explain why choosing 1998 is not cherry picking. The ~60 year cycle would allow for any year near 2000, 1998 is but one of those. That 1998 is in a virtual tie for the warmest year in recent history is not in dispute and why it is in that position (record ENSO) is not in serious dispute. What is in dispute is the appropriateness of choosing a strong El Nino year as the starting year for assessing warming trends. Why would it not be equally appropriate to choose 2000 or any of the other surrounding years that provide a different result?
No! On the contrary. I did not cite Lindzen as an “authority” but I informed of Lindzen’s claim and I disagreed with it.
and the point of that was what? Do you have a link that provides the answers that I asked regarding his assertion re warming since 1995?
So, while the Jeb/Boris’s are right to dismiss “appeal to authority”, they are wrong to dismiss opinions of the informed
I have not dismissed Lindzen. I have asked for clarification on several points directly related to his support for his assertion.
Tenekes lost his job as Director of the Dutch Meteorological Institute…because they refused to toe the pro-AGW line.
I recently returned from the Netherlands where I was researching for the past several years and that is not how things are seen there. For anyone concerned Tennekes is doing fine and is far from lost to the Dutch science scene. Last I checked he was still member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), still lectures at the University of Nijmegen, and is still skeptical of current climate models.
at least two US State climatologists have lost their jobs because they refused to toe the pro-AGW line.
Who?
Jeb/Boris repeatedly say that I am a “coal industry lobbyist”
Once again I am not Boris, or any other commenter here.
In a previous post I withdrew the term lobbyist (improperly used once) as inaccurate and substituted advocate or former advocate which I think is accurate. This is/was always a side issue and as I initially stated does not directly relate to the value of your arguments. You keep bringing it back to this. You continue the insults and the side show. Once again any point (personal or otherwise) of mine you show to be false I will withdraw. Barring that this sideshow should end.
