Nomad, really, it's time to read. You say "ALL the delta K (change in temp, in case you didn't know) is allocated to CO2, completely disregarding all other heating factors". 2007 IPCC WG1, page 4 (!), Figure SPM.2 (tinyurl com/7dcl7e2). Okay, so wrong there.

"measured global temps are on a downward trend for more than ten years now". Wrong (tinyurl com/772me3l). I even used UAH to give you a chance, but it didn't work out.

Good paper on climate sensitivity calculations: Knutti and Hegerl (2008, Nature Geoscience) (tinyurl com/ydl327z).

Good recent paper on attribution between CO2 and other climate forcings: Gillett et al. (2012, Geophs. Res. Letters) (tinyurl com/86vhqwc). Only 5 pages and easy-to-understand figures.

BlablaclimategateblablaIPCCbib­leblacherrypickbla... Still boring, Nomad...

I can't give you the ch/verse recital of the IPCC bible, but don't you think the hockeystick graphs (Mann's and Hansen's) are testament enough that we're going tp fry?
Your statement about me reporting what someone else puts into my head might have some merit, but it applies to EVERYONE, including especially YOU! Without doing that, you wouldn't have invented the alphabet yet, let alone single-handedly measuring, processing and interpreting all the world's climatic data. You wouldn't even have noticed on your own that the planet had warmed when it did.
For a scientist, it seems very odd that you avoid discussing the science, and prefer to cite and demand suitable IPCC verses. The climategate emails clearly reveal the corruption of the hockeyteam, and their plots to silence dissent. And before you brush aside my arguments as lacking evidence, you're welcome to ask, if you cant use google. I'd love to rub your nose into them, one at a time.

@Iiceman, it is noted that you once again dodged my question to you: "How do you know that we are +0.8C up, and they weren't -0.8C down preindustrial? What should the absolute temp be?"
your diversion is to testify that the 2007 IPCC report dictates a climate sensitivity of 2-4.5C. Well, Hello? That's exactly my point. That sensitivity is based on cherry-picked periods of warming (the most adjusted and extreme ones), and ALL the delta K (change in temp, in case you didn't know) is allocated to CO2, completely disregarding all other heating factors (unless, of course, the CO2 concentraions are deminishing proportunately to the temp decline). And since the damned measured global temps are on a downward trend for more than ten years now (and counting), the ONLY conclusion can be that the sensitivity of 2-4.5C should at worst be 1.2C, most probably much lower . Here's just one example of useless models I'm talking about tinyurl /7soqg8v ...

@mphello, OMG, you're intelligence personified! (just so you know, I'm being sarcastic again, so don't get a big head yet). Just because I never claimed to be a creationist, you have concluded that I must be an atheist?? Good thinking that is consistent with your understanding of science ! Perhaps you should take my advise about not smoking your sox and addressing your protein deficiency more seriously.
In one single sentence, you insulted all creationists, anti-marxists, pro-capitalists, fake atheists, conservatives, muslims and royalists. For a member of the AGW cult whose survival is doomed without a consensus, you seem to be pissing off more than half of the world's population. Not even I can do so much damage to your cause... :o)

@globalnomad62 =And exactly how have you deduced I'm religious?=

Good. I'm glad to hear you're an atheist, like me. Too many stupid anti-Marxist pro-capitalist cultists have invaded the atheist camp and are giving a bad name to atheism. Funny - these same self-proclaimed "atheists" don't speak a WORD against extreme conservatives like muslims throughout the world, like the House of Saud, because they are cowards who want to continue doing business with these islamofascists for the oil.

Nomad, point to the peer-reviewed papers, or statements in the 2007 IPCC report, that indicate we're on the path to "runaway warming". The models, the papers, and the IPCC say 2-4.5 C per doubling of CO2. That's dangerous enough, since we're talking about 2x to 4x the pre-industrial CO2 by 2100.

And no, you haven't "studied the data". You've never shown any evidence of studying data. You report what someone else puts into your head.

@ archie, you hate me more than you love your cause. With your unfounded anti-creationist
outbursts, you are robbing the whole effect from greenman's latest journalistic attempt
with Dr. Hayhoe. It's totally beyond me, why anyone would direct hostility at billions of
people on the basis of their religious belief. Not -- very -- smart-!
Your favorite scientists should all be eating their hats now

1) Iceman, sorry I was in a rush earlier and couldn't respond then.
For a self-proclaimed scientist, your non argument is feeble!
I've studied the data. There may have been many decadal periods of stable atmospheric
temps, but under a ruler flat sub-300ppmCO2 ambience. Or wasn't that the holy grail of
your religion, to link increased CO2 to thermal runaway spiral causing catastrophical trigger
points, that stop only short of meltdown because ocean levels would have drowned out
the rest of us, That's what the models say. Pity for climageddonists, their predictions are
simply not matching real observations, no matter how much one hides the decline or
disregards warming factors other than CO2.
Btw, and how do you know that we are +0.8C up, and they weren't -0.8C down preindustrial?
What should the absolute temp be?

Nomads constant "Ha, ha" and ":o)" sure have somehting desperate about them. Oh, well. 2011 was a bad year for AGW-denial after all.