Don Aitkin,

"...(not that there has been much for the last 16 years)..."

That particular cherry-pick is fast turning into a "skeptic" evergreen : )

http://theconversation.edu.au/there-is-no-such-thing-as-climate-change-denial-11763

Poirot, stop pretending that your belief is not circular; you have never proved it; you only ever cite links that assume it. You are a classic example of the intellectual bankruptcy that Don identifies.

Don't answer with anything but proof; not appeals to absent authority. You have nothing.

Jardine K. Jardine,

On the contrary, I cite links that at least have scientific veracity...as opposed to warbling "skeptical" cliches.

http://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

(Gee it's getting Hum[e]id in here)

Poirot

Ho hum, more appeals to absent authority, no proof, just circular reasoning.

You lose, but your intellectual dishonesty prevents you from even joining issue, and that's why you haven't posted proof, isn't it?

But perhaps if you keep repeating your fallacies and blind worship, they'll become true eventually.

Jardine K. Hume,

Whatever you say : )

Poirot
Thank you for conceding what is in issue: that your method of assuming what you don't and can't prove is not rational, and therefore can't be scientific. Irrational hierarchy-worship is what you're propagating, not science.