Silly filly seems qualified to join the Climategate 'team". She doesn't seem to examine all of the data (i.e. read the whole piece) and despite several previous occasions when I showed her the data and facts she continues to ignore the bits she doesn't like and substitutes her own reality.

She asks about a "supposed lack of warming trend". I commented that the trend looked pretty flat over 12 years and then later I said, on the subject of a warming trend, "Jarraud talks of a long-term warming trend but when temperatures have risen then plateaued and are now higher than near the start of the data, of course there will be a warming trend." Didn't she read this far?

Silly filly regurgitates the same tedious claims every time and seems blinkered to what the data reveals.

Dear snowman, good name for someone trying to do a snow job. A pithy little reply with no attempt to discuss the scientific reality.

If you refer to the infamous Carter , McLean & Defreitas paper: it provided ample evidence that ENSO is only an indicator of short term temperature fluctuations and has no impact on longer scale trends (as measured and linked earlier). Do you concur?

Of course regarding the Arctic temps, here's a dose of data from UAH, at least from a respected sceptical scientist (as at DEC 2010):

Northern Polar Land & Ocean temperatures trends/decade;
Combined Land Ocean
0.47 0.44 0.52

Clearly "not warming" (as they cue the Kookaburras). And additionally, that anomaly is less than it would have been had UAH not remodelled the climate period for calculation of the anomaly. So another huge chuck of mis-statement bites the dust.

Sure, we could also discuss the "greenhouse effect", Milankovitch cycles, record C02 and other GHG levels, glacial melt, ocean heat content, ocean acidification, loss of arctic ice etc etc.
Please come back when you have something relevant or evidential to provide.

And to end with a quote from John McLean himself:
ABC
20 December 2010
The Cancun Christmas con
John McLean

"It’s widely recognised that the El Nino-Southern Oscillation has a big influence on weather in eastern Africa."

should we laugh or cry?

Quite so sillyfilly, who can forget the coverage of snowman's blindness:

http://hot-topic.co.nz/mother-natures-sons/

and

http://deepclimate.org/2009/07/30/is-enso-responsible-for-recent-global-warming-no/

No wonder snowman wants to skewer Tamino, look who co-authored this:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/2009JD012960.pdf

And to end with a quote from John McLean himself:

“When climate models failed to retrospectively produce the temperatures since 1950 the modelers added some estimated influences of carbon dioxide to make up the shortfall”

I'm crying and laughing at the same time ... reminds me of the type of comment I expect from another 'professional' climate analyst - whatever that is.

sillyfilly and bonmot; tamino is not a reference for anything; he has been caught out on many occasions; the idea that 2010 is the hottest ever and proves the trend of AGW is something that follows Mann's hockey-stick and his conclusion that the recent period is the warmest in the last 2000 years; this claim has been well and truly scuttled by McShane and Wyner's latest paper:

http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/aoas1001-014r2a0.pdf

Temperature has increased by about 0.7C since 1850 in a strongly correlative fashion with TSI; in fact the temperature increase over the recent period has a correlation with TSI of 90%; the correlation with CO2 is 42%, less than random.

Yes, Cohenite, bonmot is really scraping the bottom of the barrel, now.

He refers us to the puerile attempt, by the Climategate miscreants, to criticise the science by de Freitas et al, which merely confirmed settled science, in a way that stirred up the warmeciles, because the comment on it was that it left little room for the assertion of human contribution to global warming.

This, added to the fact that there is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on global warming really stirred them up, and the result was the rushing into print of the above reference of bonmot’s, which was easily shown to be nonsense, when de Freitas et al were able to get into print, which was not easy, with the AGW fraud backers impeding it.

So the other articles referred to by bonmot are garbage, because they are based on the miscreants' dismissed effort.

Geoff Davies crowed for a while on this purported dismissal of de Freitas, but he seems marginally more sensible than bonmot, because he shut up, once the rejoinder was published.

I can imagine bonmot laughing and crying with the effort of maintaining his factless approach to sustenance of his grip on unreality.

This is old, long discounted material bonmot is dredging up, here. He should update himself. There must be some current rubbish available for him to use to back AGW, but everyone is awake to realclimate, the site of the “hockey stick” perpetrator, and current Climategate miscreant, Michael Mann, so he need not try that.

Sillfilly has yet to post anything coherent or factual. She is a waste of space. Not even amusing.

You mean the one and only Cohenite from both Jennifer's and Joanne's 'denialablog' is chiming in too! Wow, the ears must be a-ringing and the call-to-arms be a-singing. Next we'll see the WUWT crowd, coming down the mountain?

Hey cohenite, I read the title of your link and just, umm, er ... turned off. I mean;

A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE TEMPERATURE
PROXIES: ARE RECONSTRUCTIONS OF SURFACE
TEMPERATURES OVER THE LAST 1000 YEARS RELIABLE?

Seems like you still got a hang-up over a numerous hockey sticks.

Will try and break this to you gently - THAT'S OFF TOPIC.

TSI important? Yup. But that ain't all sol.

Nick
Still floundering I see - will snowman throw you a lifesaver?

still roflmho