Raycom,

You have missed my point entirely.

Enjoy your day.

Bugsy says "Either way, I cannot help you. I am not a library, nor a research service."

Translation... who needs data when you have faith.

To voxUnius looking for SLP anomaly data. I wouldn't hold out too much hope in finding it at NOAA. My experience of NOAA is that if the data supports the true faith then its dead easy to find. Otherwise you need the skills of Sherlock Holmes to uncover it.

I'd suggest you go here - "http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/SOURCES/.KAPLAN/.RSA_COADS_SLP1.cuf/.OI/.slpa/html+viewer?"

As a general observation it seems that this little group is occupied by those who have abdicated all independent thought in favour of mere unquestioning faith in what their chosen expert(s) say. They each have their own method of rejecting any data which challenges their faith.
Some will instinctively reject data as cherry-picked even when they don't know what the period allegedly cherry-picked is (Poirot).
Quite a few have bought the whole consensus tale and will believe whatever the consensus tells them. I wonder how such people reconcile disputes within the consensus. Or do they pretend no such dispute exists?

Of coarse most are guided by the current meme...whatever it may be. Since most of the dire predictions of the high priests of the faith have failed to materialise, they are currently reduced to fretting about the arctic ice. And their loyal followers concur. But when asked what the effect of a total arctic melt would be, silence came the stern reply.

In my experience of this and prior scares, these views are pretty standard. Many people draw comfort and moral righteousness from being part of the herd. But once the herd starts to move on, they will go with it and somehow forget they ever were misled by their previously beloved gurus.

mhaze, (appropriate moniker:)

It doesn't matter which short-term trend you cherry pick. If you concentrate on a short-term trend while ignoring the full body of evidence - that's cherry picking.

I note you're sticking to the denialist script.... "faith", "high priests", "gurus".

Still employing the "believers" device - and you're not even being creative with it.

Next....

Poirot, you live in an alternate universe; you say:

"As I recall, Agronomist (who obviously has some formal science training), bounced you around like a rubber ball in that discussion - at every turn he had your measure."

Read my last comment on the thread; Agronomist misunderstood the way the Chow test was used in the paper; as simple as that; and he was a condescending jerk about it as well, just like all the climate scientists.

I readily admit my statistical knowledge is undergraduate; but I spend my valuable time learning the statistics when I have to, and I am amazed by the bluff and bluster of your precious climate scentists when they are pushed.

Your naivety is typical; the climate scientists are doing nothing more than attempting to establish a closed shop with priesthood status; it would be pathetic if it were not costing billions and giving science generally a black eye.

But you are a true acolyte and can't see past your prejudices; maybe when the lights go out you'll start to think.

Bugsy, you're white noise. At least Agronomist had a go.

Poirot,

1. mhaze is my name not a moniker. Unlike most I don't to need to hid behind a nickname. My guess is that others find comfort in their anonymity knowing that if/when their fondly held beliefs are found to be wrong, they can just change their nickname and pretend they were never so gullible as to believe the myth. In a few years time we'll struggle to find a Poirot anywhere near an AGW discussion.

2. 16 years isn't a "short-term trend". Both NOAA and Phil Jones have previously admitted that a 15yr trend with no warming would call into question all the models and their conclusions. So I guess you'll just have to come up with some other excuse as to why you can ignore the only real evidence that counts in this whole silly saga.

3. Just gotta laugh. You, who'll happily denigrate anyone as a "denier" are upset about me refer to believers as believers. As I noted earlier, logic isn't one of your strong suits is it?

mhaze,

I supposed that mhaze was your name...it's just that it so happens that it's appropriate.

"16 years isn't a "short-term trend""...Well yes it is, but even then - according to Phil Jones: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

I used to regularly use the term "skeptic" until it occurred to me that "skeptics" didn't particularly give a toss about how they addressed scientists.

And then there was Richard Muller, who "was" a skeptic, and we know what happened when his conclusions landed on the side of AGW.

The term "believers" is diametrically opposed to the reality of scientists reaching their conclusions through empirical evidence.

It's a rhetorical device - and nothing but a rhetorical device.