Besides calling me names, you love to overinterpret what I write and try to thought-insert, don't you? At the very least, you regularly insinuate that I am an idiot who knows nothing of science and the scientific process.
IT'S VERY SIMPLE! You, and your ilk, repeatedly try to obfuscate, misdirect, and shove the argument in a different direction.
If CO2 is the prime driver of climate change, climate being weather patterns averaged over time (nothing more), then CO2 would have to have a predominating, escalating effect given its ever increasing amounts. This presumes that there is, essentially, a static input from other climate drivers such as the sun (i.e., normal variation) or other mitigating climate factors - which is something 'warmers' have to do to make their models work and point the finger at CO2.
Energy into the system will necessarily effect different systems within the planet that affect weather. Your camp has dismissed solar variation as a prime driver. So, you have to presume that escalating CO2 levels - which you do - will create escalating global temperature mean. The assuption is that nothing else is predominate in current climatic change observations.
Given these things, it doesn't not fit with your hypothesis that one should see any dip in mean temperatures over even short periods of time, unless there is some other accounted for primary climate driver or "forcer". But, your camp won't even entertain this possibility. Your mind is made up that CO2 is the primary forcer. And, you are doing everything to re-affirm this conclusion, including promulgating and continuing to do bad science to meet your preconceived notions.
I've set out two very easy to conduct experiments that will corroborate (or disprove) a couple fast-held notions. Instead of doing these experiments, people are more content (because they are lazy and it's easier) to try to dismiss dissenters as buffoons.
The king is not wearing any clothes. I'm continually disappointed that you all do not realize that.
-Dr. Imago
.
