Then go see what bad oil company (wait, that’s redundant isn’t it?) ConocoPhillips has on their site.
http://www.conocophillipsalaska.com/environmental/Polar%20Bear%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

Let’s stop with the nonsense about oil company conspiracies, shall we?

You love Jospeh Fourier. Well he came up with Fourier series. All Electrical Engineers are taught about it.

I’m not sure I agree with 4 degrees of freedom being able to fit any curve but 6 definitely will, and fourier proved it mathematically. I have used it to great effect throughout my career. IT IS A FACT. It’s great for interpolation. The problem is that these climate modellers are trying to extrapolate the data. It doesn’t work and the observational data shows that a Ouija Board would do a better job at predicting climate than these climate models.

The degrees of freedom are commonly called Harmonics. A linear supersition of harmonics can produce any curve you like. Fourier proved it mathematically. The more harmonics, the better the fit. Prove Fourier wrong before you go off with your big ignorant mouth and trying to belittle other people who are clearly smarter than you.

Martin, you’re just an AGW schill. Give up. The game is lost. Your criminal fraud mates at CRU have blown it. You don’t know anything useful about science, physics or mathematics. I can tell. You are an amatuer trying to pretend that you are a pro.

Of course you can predict the relative difference in temperatures between London in January vs London in June, 2050. I think that’s a poor analogy. I’d be impressed if you could predict the difference between the temperatures in London in January 2050 and January 2075. That would convince me that there is some merit to the models. Trenberth’s email seems to indicate that he conflates weather with climate, just like a lot of people do. For someone who should know the difference, he sure spends a lot of time talking about the unseasonably cold weather in Denver! How come no one called him out for confusing weather and climate?

You say that “the RealClimate server was hacked and a copy uploaded. That’s certainly suggestive.” Don’t divert attention from how the documents were released. The issue is: was this an inside job (whistleblower?) or an external hack (trying to disrupt Copenhagen?). CRU hasn’t said they were hacked, have they? Never did hear back from Bilbo (#268). I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt – the article I linked is pretty long. On the other hand, maybe he just likes to throw grenades, call people names, and get out quick.

In comment 241 I think you meant “high LATITUDE”, right? In any case, the problem just seems like so much hand waving to me. If the tree rings aren’t doing what you expected them to do, then go look for testable explanations. But you said yourself that they made an assumption that the divergence was influenced by anthropogenic causes. How convenient! Are the scientists involved really that arrogant to say, “Well we KNOW this is all caused by humans, so lets’s just assume…” In any other science you’d back up and say, “Hey gang, there’s something we have to look at here…” The assumption of anthropogenic cause for the divergence forces the desired conclusion. I have not worked my way throught these two posts, but you might find them interesting:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html You’ll have to resist the knee-jerk reaction when you see the “AmericanThinker” name. Marc Sheppard is an engineer, and I think he knows his way around a lot of this statistical stuff.

A couple other points.
CO2 is a bad actor when it comes to compressor and heat exchanger design, when you have large concentrations of CO2. However, most engineering calculations don’t consider the effects of components making up less then 0.1% of the gas composition. For example, air cooled heat exchangers are designed without any regard to the effect of the CO2 in the air. And heat exchanger users are not reporting improper cooling because of that lack of regard for CO2. CO2 can be a bad actor in some cases, but it’s not magic. Yes, I realize the atmosphere/ocean system is vastly more complex than a heat exchanger, but I think we’re giving CO2 too much credit. For a thorough look at the physics of CO2, check out “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”, by Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner, at http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161. And it’s peer reviewed, so it has to be right! Yes, some of the boys at RealClimate tried to smear the paper, but the authors hit them back pretty hard (can’t find the links now).

Finally, I’ve enjoyed this civil exchange with you as well. I have a lot to learn on this subject – mainly statistics, I think. I get really tired of the labels and name calling on both sides. But the “denier” label is so old and, frankly, disgusting. To lump every skeptic in the same moral camp as the Holocaust deniers is repugnant. Also, do Gore and other AGW proponents really believe everyone who doesn’t believe in AGW is paid by Exxon? Really? – all 141 signers of the letter linked by EHMORAN a couple days ago? By the way, I wish I could find the paper now – I hate when I don’t save things in favorites! – but one of the papers used to justify putting polar bears on the endangered list was funded by…wait for it… ConocoPhillips! (If I remember right – it might have been another major oil co.). Anyway, it would be nice if AGW proponents would admit that maybe some people really are skeptical because they’re simply not convinced. I get tired hearing about how hot it’s getting, then reading things like Anthony Watts’ surveys showing the ridiculous locations of weather stations (next to parking lots, near air conditioning vents, etc). Also, if the scientists are so rigorous, and really hold each other to account, why was it that Hansen dragged his feet so long when McIntyre exposed the bias in data gathered after 2000? And why did it take non-climatologists to expose the fact that – was it Russia? – didn’t have temperature data for October 2008, so they just used September’s data, making October 2008 look unusually hot? If the Chris Mooneys of the world want to blame the stupidity of citizenry for not going along with AGW, maybe they should remember Einstein’s (I think) line about – “If you can’t explain it to your grandmother, you don’t understand it”. Kind of gets back to “science by hand waving.” Anyway, I try to interact on these posts according to Matthew 7:12 – “do unto others…”, and Proverbs 15:1 “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” I hope I’ve done that with you. Thanks again.

If there was some unusual level of melting occurring all over the world, it would seem reasonable that the sea level rise would accelerate. However, the real data shows the opposite. How does the global warming hypothesis explain the slowing is sea level rise?

It would appear the most likely reason for the modest decline is simply that the Pacific Ocean has cooled a bit, and the cooler water has contracted slightly.

Why doesn’t Discover Magazine do an article about the sea level trend at the San Francisco tide station? The ocean rose about 7 inches during the 20th century, and has declined slightly in the 21st century.

Uh, yeah. That was the point. Read the web site pointed to where, uh, yeah, it is actually shown what is wrong with the process. The argument wasn’t that “I don’t like the results of homogenisation”. It’s that the sites which have so far been reversed by backing out the original raw data, have shown that the temperatures from the 1960′s on are biased to create the hockey stick charts you AGW proponents love to publish. Everywhere you look the biases are hockey stick shaped. I am sure that means nothing to you and I am sure you will say this is no argument. Good luck to you and Fenton Communications Chris.

You are truly stupid. Destroying data provided by others is clearly the destruction of data. If you are too stupid to see the lie, I am not going to waste my time with you. I urge you and other Catastrophists to keep making such sophomoric arguments. It is the reason that Catastrophists can’t win debates and helps the case of climate realists. You have no practical idea of how the world works and will be laughed out of any serious discussions on ethics or climate.

JD