This stridency is over the temperature flat line that the UK Met Office admits over the past 16 years …

bit to argue that the effects of climate change have stopped.

Give us something other than the category of “Statistical Ignorance and Stupidity” for a change. Maybe a little reading of the science and some honesty?

You have confused ad hominem argument with ad hominem attack. The attack has become appropriate, you deniers are bad people, please don’t think you can tell us we an’t say that because you have a Latin word for it. But telling the deniers that they are bad people is not part of the climate change science argument. That’s just the science.

How about this quote: “… this past century was the hottest ever on record…” Pretty scary, huh? However, it conveniently overlooks that, as it is the only century with sufficiently extensive direct recording ever, that is not a hard target to hit; it could also be, “…the coldest century ever on record…”, “…the wettest…”, “… the driest…” All other recordings are by proxy, and so open to debate. What we DO know is that it was the century that saw the greatest human expansion ever, and that expansion will surely have some effect on the climate, and the whole biosphere, though, as yet, we still lack a huge amount of data to create a sound theory. But to accept and admit that means that you are a “DENIER”, and should be stripped of all your accolades, honours, awards, certificates, qualification, entitlements, jobs…even your life, according to one “philosopher” (to great applause from her audience, and, as I read it, Mr. Greg Laden). Something similar happened around the middle of the last century in the USA, which most Americans now treat with a certain amount of embarrassment, under Senator Joseph McCarthy.

This stridency is over the temperature flat line that the UK Met Office admits over the past 16 years (though in my maths, 2012 – 1998 = 14, but anyhoo…), while the CO2 concentration has risen inexorably. It will be interesting to see what the alarmists will say when/if the global temperature starts to fall.

Finally, these attacks on you are ad hominem, as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary: “2(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining, and dean and Mal Adapted handily confirm that.

Greg that is pathetic
I come from science not ideology
It is clearly a waste of time talking to non scientific ideologists
You plainly do not know your science and just repeat the learned platitudes of ill informed warmists

Graeme edward is either a poe, or the paradigmatic victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Messrs. D & K proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:

1) tend to overestimate their own level of skill (“I come from science not ideology”);

2) fail to recognize genuine skill in others (“You plainly do not know your science…”);

3) fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy (“…the learned platitudes of ill informed warmists”);

D & K held out hope for Graeme, by further proposing that victims can:

4) recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill.

If he’d only avail himself of the abundant genuine scientific skill outside the denier blogs 8^(. With a couple of clicks, he could absorb Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming, or exert himself a little further by taking a free online Introduction to the Science of Climate and Climate Change from the University of Oxford. If he truly “comes from science,” he’ll undoubtedly have no trouble with the material.

Those are pretty big ifs, though. After all, those who fulfill the first three criteria are unlikely to expose themselves to the appropriate training! I don’t have high hopes for Graeme, but perhaps he’ll prove me wrong ;^).

It is clearly a waste of time talking to non scientific ideologists

I agree, which is why IMO you should slink off to whatever denialist dirtpile you get your misinformation from and leave the discussion to people committed to trying to get a grip on climate change.

Because “non scientific ideologist” (and a dishonest one, to boot) is precisely what you are.