Raycom,

"The leaker...explained why he leaked."

(Doesn't sound particularly dignified to me)

Who cares?

His triple backward somersault with forward "cherry-pick" ended with a belly-flop.

Big splash.......

Zero points.

Poitot. Tremendous forensic dismemberment of Raycom post! Your argument, in detail, has turned me the full 360 degrees.

Poirot;

hear hear

LePage and Poirot can now be classified as trolls on the subject of AGW. At best they link to a certified pro-AGW site without any clue about what they are linking to and when someone goes to the trouble of pointing out to them the easy to follow defects of their link they resport to name-calling about such worthy people as Anthony Watts.

Poirot has ignored the information about Sherwood who made the complaint about the AR5 leak and the proven comments in AR5 about the solar impact. As Rawls plainly shows Sherwood not only misrepresents what Rawls said but also what AR5 says about the solar impact; this is what AR5 says:

"The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link."

AR5 says an "amplifying mechanism" like GCR; not an "amplifying mechanism" which is GCR.

Yet Sherwood criticises the leak by saying he has disproved GCR!

You are hopeless Poirot.

In my earlier comment to warmair I said:

"That is not declining and I did link to the Soloman paper about declining SH at high atmosphere; there are plenty of other such papers:"

That of course should be:

"That is declining and I did link to the Soloman paper about declining SH at high atmosphere; there are plenty of other such papers:"

cohenite, and you of course could not be described as an Astroturfer"?
Luckily I have not a lot on that I have to do at the moment so I can sit and knock your comments back over the net for past time.
Your long harangues of gobbledegook are really quite amusing and it just goes to show what lengths some will go to either":
Be paid for strewing mis- information around.
Mis- inform for the hell of it.
Mis-inform from inability to face up to facts.
Mis-inform due to ignorance but I am sure that you are not in this category after all you come across as reasonably intelligent but just have this mental block.
Denial is not just a big river in Egypt.

That an emotive response is the best that AGW believers Poirot and LePage can come up with, is not surprising.

That UNSW professor of science Steven Sherwood is doing his unethical best to misrepresent the significance of the solar impact so as to maintain anthropogenic CO2 as the driver of global warming in IPCC reports, is particularly galling as he is being funded by we taxpayers through government research grants. Thanks to misrepresentations by Sherwood and like-minded AGW believers, Australia's socalled climate policies have been adopted without any cost-benefit analysis whatsoever, and will impact the economy adversely but have no impact whatsoever on climate change.