spindoc - who exonerated him? (I thought there were several reviews going - do you have a favourite to share? I suspect its the one by his own orgainsation isn't it - very objective!)

When you say exonerate, there was no concern about refusing to comply with FOI requests?

No mention of the fact criminal charges cannot be laid now since the activity outlived the time allowed for charges?

You're not concerned that after refusing the FOI requests, he then "lost" the data. Gosh, that's good scientific method, did the review exonerate that and say that's perfectly OK?

It's good that you think that sort of review "exonerates" people, like you would the AWB enquiry, or the police investigating themselves.

When you have a review by vested interests, you get exactly what you want when you set it up - as per the political methods parodied in "Yes Minister".

I accept he was exonerated by one of the reviews, but know very well that it is not a credible review and that they missed an opportunity to put this to bed completely by doing it the way they did.

The review I suspect you're talking about, did not extinguish doubt, and is laughable when you read the 5 page report.

Amicus, you are spot on of course, I was being a little too sarcastic for my own good. I should have used inverted comas when I said “completely exonerated”.

I was referring to the fact that under oath and legal advice before the UK Parliamentary Inquiry, Phil Jones effectively “pulled the plug” on AGW. Like I said, his views now contradict the “warmers” and they never seem to mention him or his work anymore, odd that is it not?

Were it not for the UK’s statute of limitations Phil Jones would now be contemplating his navel in “Wormwood Scrubs” and yes the various hearings had farcically narrow terms of reference, but that was no surprise was it?

It may be a very different story if the sixteen “Litigation Hold Notices” issued against the US EPA are pursued in the US Courts.

Meanwhile, I think we should let the warmers quietly fade away rather than encourage them to scour the internet for links that can salve their embarrassment. This a very bad time for them and I think we should be more empathetic. Have a giggle if you must but empathise.

Hmmm, the plot thickens!

Bugs, I wondered this morning why all the interest in solar (in)activity – smelled a rat :)

Checked What’s Up at Watt’s Up – bingo! Seems they’re all at it again, the denialospherists that is. The dumb-nuts are back to their usual modus operandi, cherry picking snippets of climate science papers for anything that they can spin and doctor to lend support to their ‘deny-n-delay’ cause. Remember how they used Josh Willis’ research last year into ocean temperatures to ‘debunk’ AGW? Well, they’re at it again, this time with Mike Lockwood’s work.

After reading “Solar Change and Climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum” (H/T malrob)

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/466/2114/303.full

I can’t see why Curmud, malrob and Co are getting all excited and wetting their collective pants about. Note the tone Lockwood takes in addressing internet “controversies” – this is unusual in a science paper, as if he is forewarning the ‘denialosphere’ not to take his research out of context, or claim it as ‘evidence’ of their own warped thought. Alas, to no avail, as the Watts’ congregation chant:

“cosmogenic isotopes suggest an 8% (‘very unlikely’ in IPCC lingo) chance of a return to Maunder minimum conditions within the next 50 years”

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024001/fulltext

So called ‘warmers’ are suggesting a 90% (‘very likely’) chance of warming in the next 100 years, and they’re being threatened (metaphorically speaking, of course) to being hung, drawn and quartered from the nearest letter-box.

What should the ‘warmers’ threaten (metaphorically speaking, of course) to do to the ‘coolers’, for suggesting a much more unlikely chance (< 10%) of cooling?

An interesting aside: some ‘coolers’ claim the Little Ice Age was worldwide, so why don’t they now claim Lockwood’s research shows that the LIA was really only occurring in a very particular northern clime?

_______

malrob

>> Individuals at the time know nothing of or incur no disadavantage from speciation or diversification. And I suggest that any individual experiences only its own impending death and no such individual has ever known it is the last of its species. <<

Specious codswallop

rpg

Actually, organisations like the Heartland Institute are very ... well, organsised. Their cronies lobby and bombard mainstream media shock jocks and colourful weatherman identities with all sorts of guff - with the intention of sowing the seeds of doubt into your bell curve sample numbers.

Amicus, spindoc - put rpg right.

The University of East Anglia’s and The Royal Society’s investigations into ‘climategate’ was a ‘white wash’ of the ‘fraud’ to ‘hide-the-decline’, right?

As to your bell curve, yep – for the people who just haven’t got a clue ... you’re spot on.

What is also not so surprising - the bell curve of ALL the major scientific institutions and academies in the world, including actual scientists engaged in ‘climate science’, is HEAVILY skewed in support of the notion that AGW is real, it is significant, and we should do something about it – sooner rather than later.

But as an “engineer”, you knew this.

_______

Spindoc

>> Phil Jones effectively “pulled the plug” on AGW. Like I said, his views now contradict the “warmers” <<

That word, “effectively”.

I suspect your comment is another example of a Freudian slip, like leaving out the inverted commas, spindoctor.

qanda, you ask me to put rpg right?

I think you have the wrong person. Like I said, when the High Priest of AGW, Phil Jones, says under oath, that he cannot substantiate any warming and cannot show any link with carbon emissions, I have to believe him.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with the CRU or IPCC.

Alternatively you could get a degree in some relevant science, obtain a research grant, produce a paper, get a job with the CRU or IPCC, discard your original data, give your dog the “schedule of adjustments” for lunch, deny FOI requests so nobody can verify your findings, feed selective assumptions into a computer model, exaggerate outcomes and timeframes when your research is challenged, and finally, start a campaign to frighten schoolchildren.

Look qanda, the world is a cruel place; Copenhagen let you down, as did the CRU, IPCC and all the governments of all the developed and developing nations worldwide. There is a strong message in all this.

It’s all over to extent that no political person or entity anywhere in the world see’s enough AGW evidence to support you. The remaining rats have deserted the sinking hulk of the “Good Ship AGW”.

You look like the remaining cabin boy (sorry, cabin person) clinging to the Poop Deck as you shout to everyone watching you, “it’s OK, the pumps are working fine”.

What is it with reality and you?

Nope, got it right.

30 years -> climate trend certain

15 years -> climate trend uncertain

The latter apparently goes over your head, spinner.

By all means, believe him - I do.

Why you continually fail to understand that a longer period is needed to filter the signal from the noise is baffling. You are either dumb-ass ignorant (which you are not) or you are blinded by your own perceived "reality".

Reality maybe different for you spinner, than it is for me - does that make my reality shite?