cohenite,

My personal opinion is that the use of the noose was over the top - something akin to Australia's initial AIDS education commercials.

What is needed in education is a goodly dose of self-reflective analysis - not straight out denial.

None of that establishes that climate scientists are liars and frauds.

Why are scientists who work in areas of climate singled out to be liars and scammers?

Regarding Borlaug and his miracle. Is it sustainable at current levels?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/india_water.html

How is depleting groundwater tables, degrading and poisoning the soil, putting peasants into enormous debt and luring them to shanty towns on urban fringes, engendering tens (hundreds) of thousands of debt induced suicides, sustainable for India as a society in the long run?

And check this out from the "skeptic" leaning Murdoch camp.

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/dear-miranda-devine-the-tabloid-press-is-killing-children-by-discouraging-vaccination-not-climate-scientists/

Shifty, shifty, lefty, lefty...there's no end to the inventive bollocks of the denial camp.

Poirot, you just muddy the waters.

The sceptics I know all believe in evolution, vaccination, are against cigarette smoking and real pollution; they're all reasonable, rational people.

There is an article here showing straightforward and profound defects with AGW; neither you or the other hand wavers and wringers have gone near those points but instead raised this rubbish about Heartland and the unibomber and the other usual ad homs.

Amazing but typical.

Mr Cox

You have been very active in supporting the 'Lord' Christopher Monckton.

Why?

cohenite,

What do you reckon about this?

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/how-tony-abbott-killed-the-australian-climate-sceptic-movement-and-schooled-them-in-realpolitik/

Here's a piece relating to your article.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/the-answer-is-blowing-in-the-wind-the-warming-went-into-the-deep-end/

What do I reckon Poirot? I reckon you should start reading the links you offer. The RC link attempting to justify a continuation of warming by AGW relies on Trenberth's new paper which is critiqued in the article and the Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 effort.

F&R 2011 was shredded in the blogs; it made elementary errors. I have shown a number of times that F&R have [inadvertently] proven that Climate Change is fully explained by the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), the Total Solar Irradiance (PMOD), and the Volcanic Aerosol Optical Depth data (AOD).

In other words, F&R have proven that CO2 has no role in climate change.

More particularly, the RC post you link to says this:

"After the powerful 1997-98 El Nino, heat flowed out of the tropical oceans in order to heat the atmosphere (evaporative cooling) and the higher latitudes."

That is not true as the article shows; the atmosphere temperature has remained flat or shown cooling since 1998, or before, or soon after, in all of the major temperature indices.

As regards wind and increasing wind as an agent for moving the 'heat' to the deep ocean, did you understand what the RC post was saying about the role of winds in ocean heating? If you did good luck to you because I didn't and as far as I can see the 'slight' increase in wind speeds globally [although that is controversial with some studies finding stilling] provides no mechanism by which surface warming, which isn't there, can be transported to the ocean depths without warming the upper ocean and ocean surface.

cohenite,

Considering I'm not a scientist (that makes two of us:), I seem to have a knack for picking up salient points.

You, on the other hand, have just enough science to mangle the subject.

Telling me that F&R were shredded in the blogs (and which blogs would that be?)and that you have critiqued this or that is about as hard-hitting as it gets with you.

What's your opinion of the MWP not being globally uniform compared to today?

You didn't address Abbott's "about face/sleight of hand" on carbon.

I'll have to dash as I have a cake to make (domestic science:)