quanda. Thanks for the references, it took a bit to follow through, some need registration etc. I have considerable difficulty, as I guess does Raycom, in relying very heavily on all the 'models' cited. Whilst they are fascinating and quite complex, the 1. "IDAG (International ad hoc Detection and Attribution Group" model has been superseded from the 'likely' IPCC probability level to the now 'low' probability category.

Again, the reliance on models, as above, leaves me neutral. I have read extensively and at length the troubles they have. (Freely acknowledged by many of the modellers) My scepticism of the 'models' is further reinforced by many FOI requests for access to the algorithms running the models being actively rejected/ignored/hidden.

Poirot, will watch and consider the link to 'Skeptical Science' that you suggest. I do, however, probably consider this site with much the same attitude as you and others display towards WUWT. However, you never know...

Eh, qanda.

Vaillant’s categorisation of defence mechanisms. I think you're on to something there. Yep. Definitely found something the AGW camp are into. The poor deluded fools.

Still, maybe they can get help for it. Professional help. There's always hope. The only major problem is that they'll be in denial about it and won't even suspect they're suffering from a psychosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis) of this sort.

How shocking is that?

You don't suppose you might have this affliction too, do you qanda?

After all, think about it, it is interesting to note that you went to a lot of trouble to look all that stuff up. And especially seeing as it's got absolutely nothing to do with the thread whatsoever. That's a worry. You'd better have a chat with your GP as soon as possible. That is a symptom. Just to be safe.

All the very best qanda.

Troposphere not warming:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/

No stratsophere cooling:

http://notrickszone.com/2012/10/05/german-meteorologist-on-temperature-models-so-far-they-are-wrong-for-all-atmospheric-layers/

http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_eye_ball_vs_regression.png

DTR not changing:

http://landshape.org/enm/david-karoly/#more-1759

The Antarctic is cooling.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/antarctic-concensus-flips-warmer-water-means-more-sea-ice/

OHC can only be raised by solar short-wave as CO2 IR backradiation cannot penetrate surface.

Precipitation predictions; you must be joking:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/09/uk-rainfall-2012-the-report-the-met-office-should-have-produced/

http://landshape.org/enm/page-proofs-of-the-decr-paper/

Number 9 seems to be a reference to the old Philipona work which I critique here at number 4:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/04/more-worst-agw-papers/#comments

No 10 is the dumbest and comprehensively repudiated by Koutsoyiannis:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/we-cant-predict-the-climate-on-a-local-regional-or-continental-scale/

Keep trying warmair; your commitment is only exceeded by qanda's arrogance and Poirot's tinker-bell impersonations.

On the subject of "belief" and "denial":

Seems to be an disturbing confluence between evangelical Christian views and climate change, Noting Lord Monckton's upcoming visit and his connection with Daniel Nallaih who trumpets Monckton's launching of Rise Up Australia here:

http://catchthefire.com.au/2012/12/rise-up-australia-party-national-launch-on-11th-feb-2013-at-national-press-club-in-canberra/

Here's the "Evangelical Declaration Declaration on Global Warming":

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

And here's a contribution by Monckton to the Cornwall alliance:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/the-ipccs-cardinal-error-in-co2-warming-calculation/

It's quite interesting that the question of climate science is one area of science where anyone and everyone feels they have the necessaries to second guess the scientists....big business and religion weigh in heavily on the side of "skeptics" in order to maintain the status quo it seems.

I should amend that to Christian "evangelical" religion... the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences is supporting AGW (probably because it employs the services of climate scientists)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110506093116.htm

For those genuinely interested in the science of climate, as opposed to those who only like pushing political wheelbarrows (or playing troll), here's an interesting article of worth to help evaluate your belief or denial.

NASA Science News
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

Cheers all.