"I agree. This is real science. But I have no idea what it means."
There is a reason science is not a democracy.
If you don't (understandably) want to wade through that whole "analysis", here is the crux of the (surprise, surprise!) conclusion that climate sensitivity to CO2 is almost nothing:
If we accept the IPCC/AGW paradigm and grant the climatological purity of the early 20th century, then the natural recovery rate from the LIA averages about 0.05 C/decade. To proceed, we have to assume that the natural rate of 0.05 C/decade was fated to remain unchanged for the entire 130 years, through to 2010.
Assuming that, then the increased slope of 0.03 C/decade after 1960 is due to the malign influences from the unnatural and impure human-produced GHGs.
Granting all that, we now have a handle on the most climatologically elusive quantity of all: the climate sensitivity to GHGs.
I think he is trying to make an ASS out of U and ME just a bit too much!
(h/t to Open Mind, who also saw not much need to elaborate!)
Has Dick been posting over at wattsupmybutt?
Sometimes a democracy makes bad decisions, so it's good that the majority view on a fact can't change its fact status.
Because at least one commenter at tamino's didn't get it he has elaborated after all: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/frankly-not/
well for me the science blog of the year is illconsidered, i am now a regular reader of this blog therefore my all vote goes to illconsidered and ill see if i can add a voting link on my Surgical Blog so that more vote can be for illconsidered ;-)