Or Belgian either :(

But "patronising" !? Moi ?! No, I just adore creations of beauty, as most women are, the one big reason why I would ever believe in a god, and a most kind and benevolent god at that. And I suspect, Poirot, that you meet all of Her criteria.

:)

Now back to Finkelstein and the silencing of dissent ......

Dear Leo, you say:

“Bonmot never gives any specific scientific references. They might limit him to reality.”

Only see what you want to see, eh Leo? Try this, immediately before your stupid remark/lie:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Seager_Naik_Vecchi_2010.pdf

Or this, one of Seager, Naik and Vogel’s latest: “Does Global Warming Cause Intensified Interannual Hydroclimate Variability?” Do try and find it.

Hey, why not even look at this paper? It’s based on evidence, measurement and observation:

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf

Leo, the above are “specific scientific references”, unlike your links to ‘denialist’ blog sites wherein distortion and misrepresentation is rife. Which reminds me, how’s the Lavoisier Group travelling? Wait, don’t bother – been there too.

.

And to dearest Anthony Cox:

Try harder at what? As I said above, we’ve been through this before.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13063#226386

I agree with the previous commenter, just because you think ‘publishing’ your unreviewed or rejected guff on OLO or in cyberspace cuts it doesn’t make your attempt at the science right, despite you using OLO as a platform to shout to all and sundry “look at me, look at me, look at me”.

Tell you what Anthony, if you really want to be a climatologist (not just a wannabe) just put up your latest creation to one of the respected journals, citing Seiger et al of course. Here, let me help:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%291097-0088/homepage/ForAuthors.html

(Advice to others – don’t hold your breath)

Anthony – since you failed your last test (wrong about Seager et al) extra homework for you – try Zahn and Allan and repeat 100 times: 1 + 1 = 2 (not 3)

Repeat another 100 times: the overwhelming empirical evidence does not contradict AGW; it gives extra weight to it.

Oh yeah, please explain why it’s ok for AGW sceptics like Spencer & Braswell, or Lindzen & Choi, to use models, but not Seager et al. LOL, even you ‘rely’ on models – confirmation bias and motivational reasoning, ignoring the fact that you’re wrong.

Blog on, Anthony : )

Adieu

Too much chemistry, not enough marine biology. Not very good science at all.

What role does ocean plant matter play in AGW?

Is there any justification to exclude ocean plant matter from planet warming or AGW science?

Bonmot, I agree all climate researchers use models to deal with the data; how that data is converted to model algorithms differs profoundly between pro-AGW modellers and the likes of Spencer; the algorithms used by the AGW modellers actually predetermine the model function because they are based on the assumption that CO2 does cause the warming predicted by AGW.

The result of that perversion of the model analyses by AGW modellers leads to the remarkable conclusions of people like Vecchi [the primary author of your Seager et al link] that macro-climate forces like the Walker and ENSO are ‘affected’ by AGW. Vecchi has been doing this for ages, as have people like Santer:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w661873236444q18/fulltext.pdf?MUD=MP

Meehl [and Santer]:

http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Meehlmid70s.JClim.pdf

This is nuts. In a Power and Smith paper alleging anthropogenic influence in macro-climate elements they also claim that the Walker is weakening: their paper is critiqued here:

http://landshape.org/enm/walker-circulation-and-enso/

Basically this paper and the other papers by Vecchi, Santer, Meehl, and your Zahn and Allan effort [which incidentally is quite circumspect and does not support your unmitigated enthusiasm for AGW; they say humidity is not increasing and that the macro climate processes are not changing even thought they speculate about wind energy] say that AGW suppresses the natural warming while simultaneously causing warming.

Do you want to think about that for a while? AGW warms while suppressing natural warming!

I don’t need to publish to see that is wrong bonmot.

The whole publishing right to comment on AGW gauntlet is a furphy; with most professions, medicine, law, accounting, engineering etc, you need qualifications to be considered to have expertise.

There is no such requirement for climate scientists; at one level therefore AGW can be seen as an attempt by a bunch of academics to create a profession of climate scientist.

But as we have seen via the emails and the scandals with peer review that attempt at a profession creation have been irrevocably tarnished

"...with most professions...you need qualifications to be considered to have expertise.
There is no such requirement for climate scienctists..."

That's a bit of a lark, cohenite.

You, a lawyer, lamenting to bonmot, who works in the field, on the necessity for expertise when dealing with climate. I'd be interested to see your "qualifications" stacked up against his.

"I'd be interested to see your "qualifications" stacked up against his."

Or Flannery's.

But really Poirot, all I can do is respond to his science, which I have done, and he keeps saying I am wrong because I have no qualifications.