LOL. Big surprise, yet another zero content "rebuttal" from the troll who pretends he's an expert but who didn't even recognize the Vostok plots. Drop the pretenses littledaviedumbass because from showcasing your ignorance of basic graphs and axes to your logical contradictions and lies you've lost all credibility. You should really focus more on bettering your education than on posting nonsense on ET.
A zero-content rebuttal of Al-Jazeera? Well, yes. It's Al Jazeera. Come on, don't try and recycle the same old "Hey, you didn't recognize a graph once therefore global warming is false" or "Al Jazeera says the IPCC is nonsense therefore global warming is false" -- show us all the other experts who are dismissing global warming. I enjoy reading about them. Next time perhaps I won't be able to find quotes from the actual expert rebutting your points. Perhaps.
Ok. If we have 2 new record years in a row over the 2005 peak, I'll say that is strong evidence we are in warming trend that is continuing.
Well that would be unscientific because it's a long term trend, however you could see which decades have been the warmest in the 120 year cycle and discern a trend from that. Kind of like a longer term moving average versus a short term moving average to discern yearly patterns of a stock. Not that anyone competent would use a moving average, but it's an analogy. (And, if you're interested, the hottest decade on record was 2000-2009.)
Nonsense. This was my full quote in response to your denial that the Himalayan glacier fiasco was devastating to the IPCC. Which of course you couldn't rebut so you pretended it was all about AlJazeera. Pachauri has been eviscerated and there have been countless calls for his resignation... the IPCC has lost credibility, and the whole global warming fraud has been for all practical purposes put on ice. Even AlJazeera is criticizing Pachauri and the IPCC. Let's look at a few more examples of your "rebuttals." 1) Vostok Plot. First you didn't recognize it. Then you showcased your ignorance of graphs: "I need to ignore the fact that there are three lines and three different y-axis labels (which is a big no-no in statistics, as anyone familiar with statistics would recognize)." Then you tried to show warming doesn't lead CO2 with crooked lines despite the fact that even global hoaxers admit it. 2) AO Index during Severe Winters. First you claimed the link didn't exist. Then you claimed the data had been made up by kooks when in fact it came from NOAA. Then you made up a moronic analogy that didn't fit about 3, 8, and 15 min bars. Then you said the data was both random and cherry picked, not realizing the two are mutually exclusive. 3) IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie. Most recently you posted one of Hulme's hilarious, backpedaling "clarifications" after he slipped up and told the truth. Fact is, Pachauri had been bragged about "+2500 scientific expert reviewers" for almost 3 years. You even made my point on this one without realizing it.
You sound like a shill in a bad infomercial. Put this in the context of past warming cycles (ice core samples) and you're looking at intraday noise.
All you know is that you heard the word "fiasco" and so you're going to repeat it. Which is actually moderately entertaining for anyone who cares to learn the context of your crazy-ranting. It was an incorrect number hundreds of pages in in volume two of one of the IPCC reports, in a section that was covered in the previous volume. LOL. So who resigned and why? As I already showed you, NASA lists over 40 ice-core data sets alone, and that's just NASA. You know the one ice-core because that's the only one you know, and you think it supports your nuttiness (which it doesn't). The selected data is clearly garbage - as you admit two sentences later with your "which is it? Is it random or cherry-picked?" comment. Either that or come up with an explanation for what appear to be random numbers. My explanation is that someone pick these years to manipulate you. What's your explanation for your failed data? And you're back to saying that the guy you cited who rebuts you is a liar. If so, then you cited a liar. I'm disappointed in you that you are reverting to repetition, as it's not as fun as when you come up with "experts" who then rebut your position. If you don't come up with another expert or unfounded assertion I won't bother replying. Repetition doesn't interest me. Nor do your endless ad-homs and declarations of "victory." That's grade school stuff, kiddo.
What mankind is interested in is the trend since the start of the industrial revolution. Can you figure out why?
Sigh. He's a physicist, he's not a climatologist, he didn't resign from the IPCC, he was already retired, and he didn't even resign from his university, he resigned from the APS and he has nothing to do with the IPCC.