Poirot,

We've all observed that your reading/comprehension skills are not what one would hope from someone so voraciously adamant of the correctness of their views. But this takes the cake....

"Nice try at twisting your intimation, mhaze. You wrote after your diatribe at Mann that "qanda is convinced that the literature proves CAGW". You mentioned CAGW, as in "Catastrophic" global warming - not he."

Well yes I did mention CAGW. Which has got what to do with anything?qanda was claiming that I'd claimed he agreed with me on CAGW. That's what I was asking him/her about since I'd never suggested such a thing.

Do try to keep up with the rest of the class, Poirot.

Actually CAGW is my favoured term for this whole mess. I have no doubt that man is responsible for some small portion of the 0.7c rise we've seen in the last 150yrs. And my response to that is, so what?

We only need worry about warming if it is (1) caused by man and therefore allows us to have some role in reversing it and (2) it is catastrophic or detrimental to our well being.

By the way, Poirot, still waiting for you to give some hint as to what evidence, data or event would cause you to doubt AGW. Do you realise that if you can't concieve of a scenario whereby a theory can be falsified, then it is no longer science, but religion? What am I saying.... of course you don't realise it.

cohenite,

Yep - cue device of "elitism" [again]. Refer to first post on this thread.

mhaze,

The "catastrophic" idea is another favourite device of "skeptics"...anything to make the scenario sound hysterical is their stock-in-trade.

I don't really know what you're tying to achieve in adopting the airs and graces of some "learned" persona ("you can call me Sir") - sorry Mr Teacher-man, who-thinks-he-knows-the-science-but-doesn't. I'm thinking the likes of qanda could run rings around your scientific "prowess" in his sleep.

Poirot; anything that you say on this thread I agree with and fully back you up.
I am not commenting on it now because since cohenite has come back out of the woodwork and repeats all of the old hackneyed bleats, it is a waste of time answering them.
They (cohenite & mhaze or is that amazed?) are just using valuable bandwidth to spread their brand of rubbish.

Cohenite:; anything that you say on this thread I agree with and fully back you up.
I am not commenting on it now because since Robert Lepage has come back out of the woodwork and repeats all of the old hackneyed bleats, it is a waste of time answering them.
They (Poirot, Quanda, Robert Lepage) are just using valuable bandwidth to spread their brand of rubbish. :)

Dear Sir,

“qanda is utterly convinced that the literature proves CAGW.”

Another absolute lie.

Said it before and will say it again: 'alarmists' and so called 'deniers' (extremists if you like) on both sides should pull their collective heads in.

Obviously difficult for you to comprehend Sir, but:

1. Equate alarmists with catastrophists (e.g. Gore) and denialists with extremists (e.g. cohenite)

2. 0.7 C (“so what”) rise is a ‘global average’ – some regions are significantly more

3. Not all the warming is caused by ‘man’, but a significant portion is

Poirot,

Anthony Cox says he uses primary data and studies and does not rely on other people.

He links to:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1

Even if he had the data (he hasn’t), he couldn’t analyse it properly.

He certainly hasn’t contacted Neil or John – a prudent thing to have done.

Denialists and arm-chair pseudo-wannabes typically distort research findings to confirm their beliefs.

I recall Jo Nova’s husband (David Evans) doing exactly the same thing a few years back regarding Global Sea Level Rise, Josh Willis’ research and the Argo floats.

When Josh made a correction he was hounded, much the same as Richard Muller with his BEST study.

Yep, will give them a wide berth