qanda; you are an empty vessel; why don't you provide an analysis of the Gregory et al paper since you are on such good terms with the authors.

For instance are you saying they didn't mean it when they say:

"The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century."

"weak or absent during the 20th century"

Just like you qanda on every post.

cohenite,

I don't think you get it.

qanda is obviously a scientist - and scientists have come to the conclusion that it is pointless to debate the "science" with people who don't wish to understand it, and who twist and deny and abuse.

As I mentioned before, the phenomenon of lay-people attacking scientists while pretending they know what they are talking about is fairly recent - at least to the extent that it's directed at climate scientists. Scientists probably thought they could react and explain reasonably to "skeptic" rants, only to find the onslaught has been over-the-top and quite rabid in its denial.

Therefore, while the odd scientist might drop into a blog (usually responding in disbelief of a "skeptics" botch-job) on the whole its pointless for them to actually engage in "scientific discussion" with people who are so submerged in denial - denying "anything" and "everything" concluded by climate scientists.

Get lost Poirot; some of my mates are climate scientists.

Your climate scientists are activists; and deserve everything they get.

Qanda has been asked to explain his point of view; if he's too precious to put up with informed and intelligent responses rather than fawning lickspittle then maybe he should take on board this advice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EY7lYRneHc

Tee hee...cohenite.

You seem dumbfounded that the "real" scientists won't engage you in any depth.

Didn't your mum teach you that if you wish to converse with people then you should treat them with respect (or does that sound more like an "elitist" concept?)

Considering you swan around here like some sort of hysterical prima donna, yelling "look at me", you'd do well to take Chopper's advice. I take your youtube video and raise you one news item:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-16/cleaner-crashes-stolen-train-into-flats/4466580

Apparently the cleaner thought she could drive a train....but she wasn't qualified - reminds me of other suitably unqualified people who think they're climate scientists.

"You seem dumbfounded that the "real" scientists won't engage you in any depth."

I couldn't care less Poirot; anyway they don't have any depth. AGW has been disproved and even if it weren't it may be the case that humans are not even responsible for most of the CO2:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14581

Bob's a real climate scientist; he looks at data and analyses it.

You mean Bob's a real Electrical Engineer, don't you?

Of course the word 'some' implies more than one, and 'climate scientist' usually means someone who works on climate related study, not usually someone who reads or watches the weather report.