Come on Steve, lets play.
"How does referring to it add to the debate of the flaw of your post of 10th November 2008 14:44 GMT?"
What flaw. Strange that you say later
"So do you care to say exactly where and how was I “talking bollocks”?"
Rather ironic, really.
And you are talking bollocks in the exact sense of "The Global Cooling Scare whas from scientists" is bollocks. It wasn't. If you'd READ the scientific paper you would know that. That, precisely, is where you're talking bollocks.
"If I haven't “been honest” can you state exactly where and how?" You have not honestly said you never read it, never honestly retracted the incorrect statement and never honestly answered by questions.
"Can you give, and substantiate, any reason why you shouldn’t answer my questions?" Yes. You never answered mine. Only accused me. You have lied because you heard a quote somewhere that suits your bias and it was wrong, so any answer to your questions will be ignored if they can't further your agenda.
"How does one prove something that isn’t there, especially when it is swamped by something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason?" You can't. And again an dishonest question. Global Warming is there. The CO2 from human output is large and definitively and unambiguously there. And detecting something that is there, even when swamped by something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason is possible.
"Does the length of the sampling period properly cater for the lowest frequency component?" Yes.
"Do you care to tell us how to average out the effects from external influences when their cycle times are orders of magnitude greater than the averaging period" Such as what?
"How do we get from “something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason”, to “noise”?" Because "noise" is the opposite of "signal". "Noise" is the elements that hide the signal because their cause is unrelated so reducing the correlation unless longer sampling is done.
There, Now I've answered yours.
Now, answer mine:
Have you read the reports from scientists on the global cooling in the 70's?
How many were there?
What external influence beyond the timescale is not taken into account in GCMs?
Why are you adamant in your insistence that there is nothing anthropogenic about the recent global warming? And even seem to be demanding there IS no warming.
I've answered yours. Now you do mine.