Poirot,

You asked me, 'when you check the weather report, do you immediately dismiss it as a whole lot of scientists scamming you?'

No, I don't. I have a long-term interest in weather, recognise the limitations under which the forecasters operate, and feel that they do a good job. The fine print tells us that all these forecasts have probabilities assigned to them.

'Why is it,' you go on, 'when we are discussing long-term trends (climate) as opposed to short-term trends (weather) that the whole scenario apparently changes and "skeptics" accuse scientists of concocting a scam?'

I don't know who these people are, and I'm not one of those who talks of a scam. Climate scientists do their job like other researchers. The problem is that the funding rules (and to a degree, the publication rules) have been set to emphasise AGW to the exclusion of all else. If there are no funds to explore natural variability in climate, then people won't work on it. If you need to say something positive about the reality of AGW to get your paper published, then you will say it, even if it does not seem to support the drift of your paper.

If current trends in temperature continue, then these rules will be relaxed.

Robert LePage: "FYI. Central West Antarctica among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth ...".What point are you trying to make?
More ice loss through snowfall on Antarctica
12/12/2012 - Stronger snowfall increases future ice discharge from Antarctica. Global warming leads to more precipitation as warmer air holds more moisture
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/more-ice-loss-through-snowfall-on-antarctica

Mr LePage doesn't disappoint and links to a 'science' comment which says the extra snow in the Antarctic is due to AGW; that is, AGW makes it colder as well as warmer; we've heard the same rubbish about a warming Arctic making Europe colder.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

In discussion above I've already shown that there is not extra water in the atmosphere so there is not an atmospheric water source to produce the extra snow; in addition there is more sea ice around the Antarctic; in fact the Antarctic sea ice levels are at a record high:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

So, we have records ice around Antarctica while at the same time record evaporation to provide water for the record snow falls on the Antarctic?

It is a miracle!

LePage's link says:

"Since snowfall on the ice masses of Antarctica takes water out of the global water cycle, the continent’s net contribution to sea-level rise could be negative during the next 100 years – this is what a number of global and regional models suggest."

But it's still bad because the extra ice will cause more ice to break off and add to sea level rise.

However GIA studies [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1873965208000261] show that the ice compresses and does not necessarily flow to the ocean. Again we have models at loggerheads with both empirical evidence and commonsense.

My word I wish I had your scientific credentials Mr Cohenite. You are obviously wasted in the legal profession and should be used to advise the scientific community world wide.
Now I have a new proposition for you.
Black is black..... except when it is cohenited.

Don Aitkin,

I appreciate that you maintain that you are not personally crying "scam".

However, much skeptic rhetoric talks of a scam.

cohenite,

You said Anthony Watts is a meteorologist. By that you intimate that he some formal qualification in meteorology or atmospheric physics - which doesn't appear to be the case:

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

"Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist...He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer...."

(btw I haven't linked to sourcewatch to get up your nose - merely that they have information of Watt's credentials)

Raycom,

My understanding is that the "leaker" did a triple backward somersault with a forward cherry-pick - lifting a sentence without consulting the entirety of the paragraph:

http://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-draft-leak-global-warming-not-solar.html

Can't agree with you there LePage old chap.

You see if Cohenite did have scientific credentials, he would probably be caught in the same trap you, & so many others are in, & perhaps talking the same garbage you talk, to protect his income.

No we need the Cohenites of this world, with the savvy to understand the science presented by honest scientists, & the ability to argue the case, with that data.

That is what upsets the warmists so much, knowing the stuff, & putting the argument together so well makes him very hard to shoot down, doesn't it?