Ha, what a supercilious nong you are steven; I did paraphrase other sources; firstly Cowtan and Wray's paper and wiki's definition of kriging which I looked up.

That's the typical thing with the smarties who support AGW; they assume people who don't are stupid. That condescension is a ubiquitous attribute of religiosity and faith; which of course are the dominant qualities believers in AGW have. When you have faith intelligence is irrelevant and just sophistry.

Instead of admitting that there is just as likely a chance that the areas not covered by temperature records at the moment may be cooler C&W assume the opposite and proceed on that basis; is that simple enough for you steven?

Stevenlmeyer commented:
"SPQR wrote:
>>If it were about "the science " they ought to have been able to say "Yep, there is an unexplained hiatus but the researchers are doing a recheck". >>
That is exactly what scientists do"

Maybe, but that ain't what Poirot does.

This was her a few months ago:
A question from Loudmouth:"So you're prepared to agree that temperatures have risen barely an inch in a century, sea-levels by barely an inch in a century, and that average world temperatures have not risen substantially in fifteen years ?"

Poirots response was: "[Loudmouth]You know next to nothing about this complex subject..."(then went off on a tangent)

I tried the same question:
"Just answer the question, Poirot.
Surely it's either yes of no!"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6023#172648

Again she avoided it.

And that wasn't the only time she,like some faithful member of some fundamentalist faith, dodged the issue.

And for her to now imply she already knew/acknowledged it, as in:"Here's an article which I routinely post..."
Is shown-up as a nonsense by her post above where she says:
"Here's something....'A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated...'

Ahem! why is it of note if it was old news to her?

Stevenmeyer I might be able to find some so sort of meeting of minds with you but never with Poirot & co. Be aware that when you run and lie down with the alarmist mutts you're sure to get fleas

The first thing to note is that SPQR doesn't come on climate threads to discuss questions of climate.

SPQR's self-appointed mission is to pop along for his regular shot at Poirot.

Firstly, Loudmouth, while appearing reasonably intelligent, has an extremely limited repertoire when jumping on board to question climate scientists and their conclusions.

He maintains a stock standard collection of a few simplistic strawman questions which he regularly rolls out - supposedly to confound the experts. He then demands a "yes or no" answer to them.

Sometimes scientists are stupid enough to take his questions as genuine, and will attempt to answer them. bonmot did so once, taking the time to give him a lengthy post in reply - and this was what Loudmouth said to me in response:

"I certainly don't dismiss what someone writes - witness my responses to your constipated friend Bonmot above."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13951&page=0#241476

And he finishes of that particular post to me in fine form:

".....See, I'm assuming you're not one of those latte-sipping wa.nkers, that you have ideas :)"

(Scroll up for prior conversation)

Loudmouth isn't genuine in his enquiries. He has a stock of repeated simplistic questions which he employs ad nauseam as a cover to have a go and sling insults at his opponents.

SPQR, I think you're tad mixed up. The article which I claimed "I routinely post" is this one on Pachauri's misrepresentation by Lloyd.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/australian-pachauri-global-warming.html

You say:

"And for her to now imply she already knew/acknowledged it, as in:"Here's an article which I routinely post..."
Is shown-up as a nonsense by her post above......"

Where?... acknowledged what....

I did not acknowledge that global warming had stopped. There is an acknowledgement that as far as the record goes that "surface air temperatures" had/have plateaued.

This article: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/ posited something new.

I was merely linking to it because it was new and interesting.

It wasn't old news to me.

Unlike your penchant to chase me around the forum critiquing my style whilst ignoring the subject at hand.

@Poirot,

<<Unlike your penchant to chase me around the forum>>

Only in same way that a good civic minded citizen who happened to spy a shifty looking character swinging nunchucks and mumbling obscenities walk through the town square, might have a penchant to poke his/her head around the corner to see what the character was up to.

Hmmm cohenite

I googled with the words "cowtan, way, uah, kriging, temperature, inversions" and came up with Judith Curry and WUWT. From the similarity in language I suspect you summarised from WUWT which is based on Judith Curry's blog.

However I think Judith Curry says it best. Here's a link for those who are interested.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/13/uncertainty-in-sst-measurements-and-data-sets/

>>Instead of admitting that there is just as likely a chance that the areas not covered by temperature records at the moment may be cooler…>>

There are several reasons for thinking they may be warmer. These include:

--What we know about weather systems which suggests that polar regions would be most strongly affected by global warming (Spare me the taurine fertiliser about AGW being a myth)

--The continuing reduction in Arctic ice mass

--Well documented changes in vegetation in near Arctic regions such as Alaska.

SPQR (this concerns you too cohenite)

I do not "lie down with the alarmist mutts." I avoid members of the celebrity climate circuit (Flannery, Suzuki, Gore, the idiot crown prince of England, etc). I tend to get my information from actual working scientists who are quite ready to admit all the uncertainties and difficulties.

If you can convince me that:

--Certain well established laws of physics are wrong; and

--Certain well understood weather dynamics are wrong

I'll concede that AGW may be a myth.

If you can convince me that some well established facts about chemistry are wrong I'll concede we aren't causing ocean acidification.

In the real word there is no uncertainty about the FACT of AGW and ocean acidification.

What is interesting, and uncertain, is:

--The timetable. How fast is it happening? Is it an urgent problem or do we yet have many decades?

--What are the consequences? Are we headed for near term catastrophe? Could some global warming and added CO2 be beneficial?

--What are the RISKS?

--What are the best policy options for Australia?

These are the questions we should be discussing. We really need to ditch AGW denialism – any yes it is denialism.

"taurine fertilizer"? That's a bit esoteric steve; do you have shares in the method?

"--The continuing reduction in Arctic ice mass"

? Various pro-AGW sources predicted no Arctic ice by 2013, Gore and the ABC said 2008 but the data says the Arctic ice is recovering:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Now both ice area and extent are both up so don't quibble about "mass".

I was interested in the C&W's paper's reference to possible factors contributing to Arctic warming other than just AGW; they say:

"The Arctic has experienced a very rapid temperature
change over recent years through a combination of polar
amplification of greenhouse warming, albedo change due
to both black carbon and snow/ice loss and possibly a
contribution from multidecadal variability (AMAP 2011;
Semenov et al. 2010)."

What has been happening at the poles is entirely consistent with Polar amplification;

http://www.princeton.edu/~cmngroup/13_Science_Editors_Choice.pdf

The C&W paper is detailed but predicated on assumptions which are in themselves biased in that they favour AGW.