In other words: “RICKA IS A FRAUD.”

Okay, I can see that…

But as you are so insistent that I answer I will give you my layperson speculation.
SO HE ADMITS HE KNOWS NOTHING, THAT HE IS A COMPLETE NOICE IN THE FIELD.

First, I speculate that not all the warming since 1880 is caused by humans, some portion of it is natural.
SO HE SPECULATES BASED ON 0% EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. THE WORLD’S LEADING CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AND EVERY MAJOR SCIENTIFIC BODY IN EVERY NATION ON EARTH ARGUE THAT HUMAN FORCING ACCOUNTS FOR VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE RECENT WARMING, AND HERE WE HAVE AN ADMITTED KNOW-NOTHING MAKING HIS OWN SPECULATIONS. SERIOUSLY FOLKS, THIS COULD COME OUT OF A MONTY-PYTHON SKETCH. ACTUALLY, ALL OF THIS IS LAID OUT IN THE PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE; THE PRE-1945 WARMING WAS DUE PRIMARILY TO NATURAL FORCINGS, WHEREAS THE MUCH GREATER POST 1980 WARMING IS DOWN TO US. BUT RICKA SPEAKS AS IF WE ONLY NOTICED THE WARMING YESTERDAY; THAT THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY HAD ONLY BEGUN TO EXAMINE TEMPERATURE RECORDS AND EXAMINE WHAT DRIVES THEM. HE WRITES AS IF THE DEBATE WAS ONLY BEGINNING.

HERE’S THE FACTS, RICKA: THE POST 1980 WARMING IS ALMOST ENTIRELY DOWN TO THE HUMAN COMBUSTION OF FOSSIL FUELS. NOT THEORY, BUT FACT. ITS ALL LAID OUT IN THE SCIENCE THAT EVERY ACADEMY OF SCIENCE IN EVERY NATION ON EARTH CONFIRMS. YOUR LAYPERSON VIEWS ARE IRRELEVANT.

He repeatedly says that he has no expertise whatsoever in climate science, and then goes on to argue that natural variability could account for 50% of the warming. According to who? Himself. While saying he doesn’t know anything about climate. This is like someone arguing that the expression of sinigrin in mustard plants accounts for only half of their defense expression against antagonists like pathogens, and that some other factor is involved, while then going on to say that they don’t know a thing about plant allelochemistry.

The IPCC documents lay out the fact in conservative terms: humans are responsible for >95% of the recent warming episode. The IPCC documents went through 12 rounds of internal and 3 rounds of external peer review. In a feeble attempt to placate the deniers, a number of them were included in the process. This had the effect of watering down the conclusions t some extent, but the final draft is still unambiguously clear: the post 1980 warming is down to us. Period.

That should be the end of the story, but for the ranks of the denialati out there, made up primarily of non-expert laymen, it isn’t enough. They draw conclusions based on their own pre-determined views and then expect to be heard. RickA is one of them. They don’t understand the importance of scale when studying large scale deterministic systems; whereas the scientific community has explored all angles, they stick to discredited memes like ‘its the sun that dunnit!’. Then RickA tries to play the uncertainty game and applies it to the process itself: if we aren’t certain how much it will warm in the coming decades, how do we know the extent of the human component? Its a tried and trusted trick of anti-environmentalists, and climate change deniers or luke warmers use it as well.

He goes to the lower end – around 2 C – while ignoring the fact that this year we have already approached 1.5 C, showing that 2C is getting close. Essentially, he’s on here debating for no other reason that to annoy people. He cannot argue science so instead he imposes his own simplistic doubts into the debate and goes from there. It s really pathetic, and I speak as a senior scientist with many years of experience. It is what Born Lomborg does, and I should know since I co-reviewed his terrible book for Nature back in 2001.

“But last week saw movement, as Steyn’s request that the suit be dismissed was itself dismissed, as a similar request was in 2014. So this is a small win for Mann, and a loss for Steyn. The judge’s patience with Steyn’s antics seems to be wearing thin, as the ruling notes that “Only one thing has changed since the court last considered this issue on April 11, 2014 – the date.””

https://climatecrocks.com/2016/06/13/another-legal-win-for-michael-mann/

More here:

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/13/1538051/-Small-Win-for-Mann-in-The-War-on-Climate-Science

In the meantime, Steyn lost his appeal, in the process pissing off yet another judge.

Would anyone have a link to this? Can’t find anything.

In the meantime, Steyn lost his appeal, in the process pissing off yet another judge.

The appeal he just lost is the same appeal he lost previously. Judges love that behavior.

the warming from 1910 to 1940 .. was like .5C ish.

More like 0.4C, even if you cherry pick only the warmest 10 year period around 1940. 10 year periods are not long enough for a valid climate average, BTW.