The great scientist, bonmot, has linked to NOAA climate data; NOAA is a joke, continually adjusting its temperature indices upwards:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/19/july-was-also-the-329th-consecutive-month-of-positive-upwards-adjustment-to-the-u-s-temperature-record-by-noaancdc/

GISS is worse:

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/6440/Is-It-Really-The-Warmest-Ever

These organisations, the driving 'evidentiary' force behind AGW, simply adjust data to fit the ideology.

It is a disgrace, it is a public scandal, but it seems to to be working, having sucked in the intelligentsia and other policy drivers for whatever reasons, all to the disadvantage of the ordinary citizens and humanity as a whole.

You must be very proud bonmot, looking down at the rest of us from your moral vantage point; idiot.

Seems the author is also blinded by the latest statement from the American Meteorological Society statement:

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html

An OLO author calling a commenter an idiot is an example of cyber-bullying, reflecting more about the author.

Good stuff, Anthony.

Yes, cohenite,

Excellent stuff... a fine commentary from the self-styled spokesman for "ordinary citizens and humanity as a whole."

But I'm awaiting csteele's return to the thread...shouldn't be too long now.

Aw diddums, did I hurt your feelings; don't worry I can see big sister, Poirot, will look after you.

Still waiting for ONE comment from you, in your own words, about anything to do with the science, instead of this unrelenting linking and cutting and pasting to sources of rubbish, which I show to be rubbish.

cohenite,

I'm not defending bonmot - he doesn't need it.

I'm here to expose your baloney for what it is.

And that includes your cosy tactic of "speaking for the common man."...which would be more use to them if you were actually a scientist:-

....which you're not.

Aw precious petal, I see I have hurt your feelings.

You relentlessly link to Anthony Watt’s and Jo Nova’s sources of rubbish, and make up your own brand of ‘science’.

Rather than stoop to your level of gutter drivel, I link to the recognised and established scientific research and organisational institutions doing real science, all of which employ real sceptics – not the ‘fakes’ like yourself.

Here is a list of the institutions you designate ‘rubbish’:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

And you call me an idiot? The only ‘idiot’ here is ‘Lord’ Monckton's Aussie-lackie.