re: 99.999% likelihood GW is man made.

Let me make sure I get this.... the 19 year 'pause' in temp increases, even though we are pumping more and more CO2 into the air, is too immaterial and ridiculous to consider in the grand scheme of things.. barely a single data point if anything.....

But this 304 month period - that is nothing short of sufficient to make a 99.999% conclusion? I love the consistency.

And what is the starting basis of the study?:

quote:

---

"There is strong physical evidence that the critical factors which influence global temperatures in the time-scale of human decision-making are atmospheric GHGs, aerosol and particulate concentrations, the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, solar radiation, and volcanic activity(IPCC, 2007, IPCC, 2013, Meinshausen et al., 2011, Allan, 2000, Benestadt and Schmidt, 2009, Gohar and Shine, 2007 and Wang et al., 2005)'

---

Ok so we are starting by eliminating all but a few potential causes from the equation and assigning no percentage to the rest.... then from our 4 or 5 we kept allocating the 100% basically to 1.

Where in this paper (I read it), does it conclude that 0.000% should be allocated to any other factor or more specifically why in the name of science we should completely ignore any other factor while trying to calculate a finite percent.

The scientific method is dead and gone.