You’re a busy little alarmist, aren’t you Mr LePage; a cherry-picker too; no one denies the West Antarctic Peninsula [WAP] is warming:

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/6062/antarcticatemps19572006.jpg

However, the historical perspective shows this isn’t unusual:

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/7/635.abstract

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120822131212.htm

And despite this warming snow-cover on the WAP is greater than it was 150 years ago:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032529.shtml

Clearly what is happening in the WAP is NOT AGW.

Thanks guys (although have had busy day and only glossed over your replies, but will read in more depth later...)

My "point" was (and yes cohenite I understand the difference between a meteorologist and a climate scientist) that in principle I assume that you believe that the average meteorologist is doing his job faithfully with the knowledge and skills that he has....keeping in mind that the expertise in question is just that "expertise". I imagine you'd respect that.

Why then do you not extend that respect to climate scientists on the question of conclusions regarding climate? Judging from the flack they get on these types of forums, that isn't the case. Instead you and others dismiss their conclusions, overrule their expertise and often insult them.

What's the difference that makes it okay to respect the expertise of a meteorologist or climate scientist on "weather" but bag him on "climate"?

spindoc,

Previous conclusions appear to be upheld by AR5...I assume you're referring to the spectacular cherry-pick on solar warming by the leaker - sorry, doesn't hold up.

cohenite,

"Most meteorologists share Watt's opinion about AGW:"

Well I found this on Heartland....a survey limited to "television weather forecasters who are also meteorologists..."

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/02/01/meteorologists-reject-uns-global-warming-claims

But then I found this by the American Meteorological Society (2012)...seems quite unequivocal in favour of AGW....I suppose the official AMS line doesn't count (or some such anomaly)?

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

spindoc,

"The science you offer is that which the IPCC used in their reports up to and including the AR4. The AR5 now tells us that whilst their previous alarmism is still "possible", it now has "very low probability". Therefore all your science prior to the AR5 is now invalid, so sayeth the IPCC..."

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/

"It turns out that observed global temperature has gone "right down the middle" of the IPCC projections..."

Spindoc, is this the link that you are referring to?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/

A leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to concede.

As the leaker explains, this is a game-changer:

The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.

Poirot, the dichotomy between what the AMS bosses say and what the AMS members say is rather striking, isn’t it?

I’d say it’s typical with the people running the large scientific organisations in favour of AGW while those at the coal-face keep their mouths shut, unless they can express their opinion confidentially.

It’s the same reason Finkelstein wants to censor general community access to contrary views about AGW, and the reason people like Hamilton want to suspend democracy.

AGW is an elitist ideology, a plaything of the chattering classes and other general parasites and loons.

You asked why climate scientists are not given their due respect and are insulted; as usual, you miss the point; being insulted is the respect they are due; have you not read the emails which reveal the climate scientists or what they are

And what do you do, you link to Tamino, Grant Foster, who has a reputation for manipulating data to suit his slant. Tamino is wrong about the IPCC projections; even AR5 shows that:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc-ar5draft-fig-1-4.gif

But we have had this argument Poirot; if, as you do, you accept GISS temperature which is hotter than either HadCrut, or UAH, or RSS, then the IPCC predictions become correct; but then GISS is the temperature indice used by the IPCC; and this time even the IPCC in AR5 shows their own predictions have not come true.

So Poirot, even the IPCC shows it has been wrong, but the faithful, you and Tamino, still believe.