>> Joe Joyce. It is valid there have been thre separate warming periods, two of which CO2 could not be involved, the date doesn't matter the facts do.

The date is a fact - but, when have you ever cared about facts? You’ve never figured out that facts need to be identified and justified. Deniers are champions of irrelevant information they do not understand about scientific questions they do not understand.

As long as you recycled this interview – how about explaining “statistical significance?” [HINT: it has nothing to do with “importance”]

>>Climate realist. how can you say 1975 to 1988 was not the sun, they were two intense solar cycles, far above average<<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspo...

Do you even understand what a “cycle” is? It would be nice if you could explain your comment to CR in terms of the cycle’s time and frequency domain properties – but, then, that would require you to know what you are talking about.

Come on, Kano. This is just a re-run of "Climategate"; the article is 4 years old, written shortly after the select release of cherry-picked emails, and you seem to have missed little things, like question E, or the fact that this was dated Feb 2010, with 2010 turning out to be the hottest year on record. How is this at all a serious question about the science, rather than what appears to be a thinly-disguised troll?

"E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity"

or H:

"H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing - see my answer to your question D. "

Everybody knows that Phil Jones was terrible at dealing with this, but everyone who is honest also knows that the so-called "Climategate" was a totally made-up scandal for the purpose of derailing climate discussions (in Copenhagen, I believe) and in at least 7 separate investigations, all completed after this article to which you are referring and in which all parties were exonerated of any legal, ethical, or academic wrongdoing.

Why do you present this as if it were actually something valid?

Similar yes but the same NO

AGW is still happening and none of Jones interview refutes AGW and nothing any of you deniers have or can present will prove there is no AGW

Throughout the article Jones stresses no statistically significant change MEANING it is still warming but not statistically significant before 1950 the Sun did play a role in warming, but not since the1950s You people continue to ignore that the last decade was the warmest in 134 years and that the top 17 warmest years globally have all been withing the last 18 years, and still you claim there has been no warming. You might as well go back and say the earth is flat.

There are different causes for warming. If the planet cooled in the past due to intense volcanic activity does that mean the planet can not cool after a meteor strike sending particles up into the air? Are you aware this argument is silly? It was similar. The warming at the beginning of last century was partially due to increasing solar input.

Kano: You keep asking exactly the same question and I keep pointing you to exactly the same answer regarding CO2s spectral properties. You have written those off because of something you read in a blog somewhere. You ignore the data that does not fit your belief system and accept those that do no matter if it is lie or truth.

Here is a list of them. http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08...

And the Sun has been declining in output for over 50 years now.

http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-index-graphic...

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi...

More data

http://sxi.ngdc.noaa.gov/

http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data...

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/

The frequencies related to the warming are also the wrong wavelengths to be associated with solar input. You have been told this before yet continue to ignore it. Your statement to Joe Joyce is correct. the facts are what matters. The data is what matters.

Search for whatever data you wish:

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climat...

http://catalog.data.gov/dataset?groups=c...

http://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/data-sou...

Graphicconception: If we had similar warming in the past how can we logically conclude that the current warming is due to the same processes? Especially when solar output has been declining for 50 years and, during the previous warming episode, it was increasing? The warming is due to an increase of atmospheric energy. That is the only conclusion you can draw. Anything beyond without looking at more evidence is guesswork. Given this, can you provide the exact mechanism with the recent warming trend that would logically point to the same cause? Are you going to talk about the PDO by chance? Lets look at global surface temperatures as well as the PDO over this period shall we?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...

You attempting to, probably, point towards the PDO for the warming, though it does provide quite a bit of variability, does not explain the long term trend. And the Sun definitely does not explain the long term trend and, though it, again, provides some variability it is running counter to what is currently occurring.

Graphicconception: To find the cause you need evidence. Do you ignore the data and evidences regarding spectral frequencies I've shown here and stated in the past? Do you ignore the data showing that, for example, it is not the Sun? One can;t find the truth if one does not look at the variables involved. It has been stated that the 'trend' during the first part of last century was partly due to man and partly due to increasing solar output. The recent warming trend is down to more human emitted greenhouse gases but there are, as always, other factors involved as well as you rightly state. If you question how much each of those factors contribute to the warming then build a climate model with each factor equal to today's changing variables and find out. You can get some idea by looking at link #1 below.

Warming in different times can come from different causes.

The warming from 1860-1880 seems to be a bit of a mystery. It wasn't due to the Sun. Perhaps it was due to PDO. Unfortunately, PDO records don't go back that far.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...

But the Sun does explain the warming from 1910-1940

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...

The Sun does not explain the warming from 1975-1998. Carbon dioxide does

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...

this is dumb logic, just like humans cannot start forest fires since forest fires start naturally with lightning. Try proving CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, then we'd get somewhere.

It was all the sun and nature and stuff in the past but this time it must me caused by humanity. It just has to be even though there is absolutely no proof of it just like the oceans are sucking all that missing thermal energy out of the air.

Phil Jones did not say that. You must read poorly.

Jeff M, "There are different causes for warming."

And Jeff has a chart for everyone of them. If you prove one wrong he has another one you can prove wrong. Of course, dear ole Jeff is still looking for some mysterious missing heat, so don't bother him with facts and logic.

CR, "The Sun does not explain the warming from 1975-1998. Carbon dioxide does "

Prove it. Bet you can't. And you always accuse us of 'CHERRY PICKING'. Ha! Ha! Ha!

Baccy Baby, "Phil Jones did not say that." How do you know? Were you with him all of his life? You are not the epitome of truth yourself so I cannot believe you.

Here is where I caught you with your pants down from a previous time.

Baccy BABY! You of all people. You have been caught in one of the biggest lies of all time.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

the following is from a claim and answer from that question. We were referring to The GW Swindle. You claimed than not one of those scientists believed what they said. Yet I showed you that they were part of the 31,000 who signed affidavits saying that they believed such. It follows:

I’ll give you at least three that shows you are not only a fool but lack any moral compass. These were taken out of petitionproject.org, and are some of the scientists listed by Maxx. They are part of the 31,000 scientists who have signed a document stating that what you assert to is not true. They have put it in writing. It is not even open to conjecture. Notice, I copied and pasted the portion of the alphabetical order that is germane to the issue, so there can be no question.

Professor Patrick Michaels - Dept. of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia = Edwin Daryl Michael, PhD, Harvey D. Michael, Patrick J. Michael, PhD, Robert C. Michael, William E. Michael, Wayne Michaelchuck,

Professor Tim Patterson = Robert W. Patterson, Sharon Patterson, Timothy A. Patterson, Wayne R. Patterson, PhD,

Professor Ian Clark - Dept. of

Professor Ian Clark - Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Arctic paleoclimatologist = Hugh Kidder Clark, PhD, Ian Clark, Ivan L. Clark, J. Donald Clark, James William Clark, James W. Clark, James M Clark, James G. Clark, PhD, James B. Clark, PhD, John Alden Clark, PhD, John B. Clark, John C. Clark, John R.

So Baccy Baby, once again your own words have proven you to be a liar, a scoundrel, a cheat, and one not fit to answer on this site.

So Baccy Baby: You, with a proven track record on lack of moral compass, have the audacity come on this site and point fingers and falsely accuse someone over what seems to be a minor disagreement in perspective..

You made a statement. I took the time out of my life to PROVE you wrong. Yet it affects you not. You didn't even have the courtesy to admit you were wrong. That is an utter disgusting action that only a disgusting individual would do. Not only that a vile person would continue those practices.

Joe, "Everybody knows that Phil Jones was terrible at dealing with this, but everyone who is honest also knows that the so-called "Climategate" was a totally made-up scandal." Phil Jones apologized for himself and East Anglia. What did he apologize for if he didn't do anything wrong? 'Totally honest' people KNOW that corrupting data is wrong. Joe, you just exposed yourself as a clear crook.

Which Phil Jones admitted it to be true http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

how can we blame the 1976 to 1998 warming on CO2