John Maclean Is Back To Mis-Representing His Own Paper

Will the world get warmer if there is an El Nino? Yes, that's extremely likely. In recent paper that I co-wrote with Professor Bob Carter and Professor Chris de Freitas we showed that the the average global temperature as measured from satellites shifts about 7 months after a corresponding shift in the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The visual correlation is so good (see our figure 7) that its clear that the ENSO is the primary driver. The absence of any residual warming (i.e. warming that the ENSO cannot account for) means that carbon dioxide has negligible, if any, effect.

See here .

In anticipation of certain comments... (a) we use the analysis as a means of exploring a relationship and as a means to an end, which figure 7 amply demonstrates, (b) we do not use temperature data measured at the surface because it has far too many inconsistencies, and (c) we often use the word "trends" in a general sense rather than a statistical sense (where the exact line will be described to an accuracy of several decimal places).

I've written about the paper in question here, and there are plenty of links in that post to other, more systematic debunkings. But what is important is that, after admitting (along with his co-authors) that the paper in question "does not analyse trends" (meaning it has nothing to offer to the AGW debate), McLeans now wants it to be about trends again--though "trends" in some non-statistical sense. But not, I would argue, about "trends" in the general sense (meaning "general tendency or inclination"), because that was precisely the sense of the term at issue when De Freitas and co. previously admitted their work was not about trends. I admit to being somewhat confused by the 2nd paragraph, and suspect it is straight bullshit. I mean, the statistical sense is the general sense, no?

Sigh. Its hard to explain bullshit.

PS ESNO=El Niño