Peter King,
You’re a slippery character, ay!

Arjay raises the propositions, and asks your response:
“Monckton found several hidden references to a world Govt in the Copenhagen treaty which Rudd was about to sign"

And you slip away —with your little passion play :
“ all of the hard working, poorly paid, disconnected researchers around the world feel the need to lie and falsify findings to ensure their funding." No suggestion that I see any conspiracy...far from it!”, and a few personal barbs for good measure.

Surely what Arjay believes or doesn’t believe on other subjects is not at issue here –only his point about Copenhagen’s (intended) treaty.

As I see it, your answer can be one of three
1) I’ve looked for, but couldn’t find the sections referred to , or
2) I found them, but (mis)took them to say something different , or
3) I haven’t bothered to look.

Come now, what is your answer? ( I’m tipping No.3 as the favourite!)

Geoff Davies,
It’s a bit rich you now complaining about sceptics pointing to cool spasms as evidence AGAINST GW .
As I recall it, it was the AGW spruikers (including some of our own pollies) who first used warm spasms as evidence FOR GW.

Why, it was only a few short months since some were quoting the hottest month on records, as ‘proof’.
And your side-kick Ken Fabos has only just cited a series of hot day as ‘evidence’ on another thread!

So, having given it a pseudo- legitimacy, you lot are now crying foul when it is turned against you –who mentioned ‘poetic justice’? yes, indeed!

qanda "hide the decline" comes from the emails and has to do with Jones and Mann. You raised the issue, not me, and the word "protestation" has to do with your comment not mine.

I don't have a problem with proxy data, nor do I have a problem with the fact that the world is getting hotter. I have never denied that increased CO2 should have that effect. The issue is how much and whether it matters. The problem with the bristlecones is that they are not good proxies.

What is interesting is that the perpetrators of these various paleoclimate reconstructions use bristlecones, knowing that they are not robust. If I was trying to overturn the orthodoxy on paleoclimate, as they are, I would use the most robust measures I could, and I would be open with my data and methods. I would be dead-scared I was wrong. That they are not suggests that their motivations are political, not scientific.

The Hockey Stick, and its sister reconstructions, is perhaps the biggest scientific fraud since Piltdown Man (which also involved grafting incompatiblities together).

By the way, I wouldn't go boosting Briffa who has also been caught cherrypicking (appropriate word for tree rings don't you think?) his data. Try googling Briffa and Yamal. So not only does he know they're not a good proxy, but he chooses which bad proxy he uses to try to manufacture the correct result.

Actually Graham, Arjay was the one who mentioned "hide the decline"; I just called on him to explain in his own words (I had the distinct impression he was confused about it, and I was right).

I raised Briffa because Hasbeen got the dates wrong.

If you and your lot want to bang on about “the emails”, go ahead – I’m not interested. Similarly the emails between Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts and Inhoffe.

You say “What is interesting is that the perpetrators of these various paleoclimate reconstructions use bristlecones, knowing that they are not robust.”

What I find interesting is that your statement wrongly implies there are no other palaeoclimate reconstructions when in fact there are many – and you know that. Nevertheless, you are still quite prepared to link them all in the same basket (no pun intended).

As I have said, even anti-AGW people are quite prepared to use “sister reconstructions” when they think it adds to their case (ice cores and ocean sediments come to mind) – such hypocrisy.

By the way, I don’t need to google Briffa/Yamal – this does fine by me, it is the primary source after all.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

Even your previously googled McIntyre and his Climate Audit blog gets a mention.

I am intrigued by Arjay's statement "Fact 1.C.Monckton found several hidden references to a world Govt in the Copenhagen treaty which Rudd was about to sign."

Where are these references. I do not have time to read the whole document and I have been unable to find reference to them in any reputable publication, so please give me chapter and verse.

Loxton

These links put Monckton's Musings (sarc) into perspective

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/10/19/monckton/index.html

http://catchthefire.com.au/blog/2009/10/31/one-world-government-is-almost-here-lord-monckton-of-british-house-of-lords-on-youtube-video-and-2gb-radio-interview-with-allan-jones/

The latter exemplifies the banging from the pulpit to control the masses by fear and inculcate ignorance, in my opinion of course.

Thank you Qanda

So basically, Monckton has taken the word "government" used in the sense of governance as a verb turned it into a noun and extrapolated it to "one world Government". On this basis, the International Law of the Sea, which among other things requires ships to render aid and uses the word "Government" to refer to sovereign states is also a tool of the "one world Government". It is clear that Monckton is a clown of the first order and his acolytes are illiterate fools.