Hi Janama, I owe you and everyone here an apology. The logos on the left led me to believe this was a site for educated discussion of topical issues. I've now been informed that the educated have been evicted and it's now become a squat for the illiterati.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Illiterati

Sorry for intruding. You can relax now and indulge in your paranoid conspiracy theories, flounder about in the mysterious world of simple arithmetic, and mock scientific research without any further dose of reality coming from me.

Thanks for coming sou; don't forget about 9% of all human emissions of CO2 comes from exhalation which is exacerbated by the increase in population; do your bit and hold your breath.

Just one final post.

I always fooled myself that OLO had a few degrees more veracity than sites like Watts and Nova. The mere fact that a few scientists bothered to join the fray occasionally, together with other intelligent souls, served to paper over the obvious denialism rampant around here.

Eventually there will only be "skeptics" here - and they can indulge in tribal group-think just like they do at Nova and Watts. It'll be a perfect orgy of ignorance where conspiracy theories will abound, and the master of ceremonies will be none other than "cohenite the great".

And all the "skeptics" (who actually think that he knows what he's talking about) will be able to talk about the nasty climate scientists who didn't know 'alf of what their cohenite does...and they'll all live happily ever after.

No wonder Sou was disappointed...as a site for serious climate debate, it's a joke

But it's not a site for serious climate debate Poirot, it never was.

It's a site for ridiculing your opponents and trying to claim the high ground by complaining about being ridiculed by opponents.

That's why I hang around here.

Dear cohendite,

You claim;

“I keep asking these questions, basic questions, of you and other advocates of AGW and all I get is junk and puerile point-scoring”

Actually my friend your primary question was “How can there be a continent wide summer record when no part of the continent had a record?”

It is there as a subheading for this piece and in the article itself.

As it was the primary question it was the one I went to first. I gave an answer then asked if you considered it adequate. You evaded answering or explaining yourself over several posts instead choosing to sling insults.

That effort from you was by definition puerile.

So please explain why you posed it in the first place. The only reason I can see was to cast doubt over the Met's announcement about it being a nation wide record summer. Perhaps you have a different explanation if so I would like to hear it.

Piorot et al - you continually make reference to these holier than thou 'supreme climate scientists' who are superior and form the basis of your consistent argument from authority.

So tell me - where do put leading scientists like Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Nils-Axel Mörner, Garth Paltridge, Philip Stott, Hendrik Tennekes, Sallie Baliunas, Chris de Freitas, Don Easterbrook, William Kininmonth, Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Henrik Svensmark, Ian Plimer, William M. Gray, William Happer, Tom Segalstad, etc. and the hundreds of highly trained scientists who disagree with your views on climate?

Are you that superior in your knowledge of the subject that you can readily dismiss their views as a "perfect orgy of ignorance where conspiracy theories will abound" when we repeat their views and ideas on sites like this, because in attacking us you are attacking them. These are the people we listen to, in attacking WUWT and JoNova you are merely attacking the people who provide a link to these leading scientist's views and ideas.