Sigh.

As usual fact checking is not high on the agenda among the science denial community.

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

"The full quote actually said “Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”"

Ho hum. Cherry picking quotes. Where have we seen that before.

Agro exceeds even his standards of disingenuousness.

The Journal with Gleick on the Editorial staff says:

"“Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”

So any paper which points out the inconsistencies with AGW science is "less than helpful" and opens the door to sceptic claims which are oversimplified.

What could be more simple than AGW science with its many internal inconsistencies?! When you have simple errors in AGW your criticism of these errors must be simple too.

What a farrago. The 'explanation' by the paper confirms the complaint and agro thinks it vindicates them.

The MO of deniers is to hang on any nuance that can possibly be construed. E.g. there has been no significant warming for 17 years, wheras the real case is that there has been, if one does not focus only on surface temperature. They prefer to oversimplify the matter because it serves their myopic purpose.

There were reasons for the article being rejected going well beyond a perception by one reviewer who was cognisant of the propensity for deniers to go off half-cocked. He obviously thought the author could allay this concern by making a " significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences ... [The paper] does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place".

See here: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/05/top-scientific-journal-rejects-times-front-page-article-claims/

We know that the global warmers and their computer games programmers entirely failed to predict the current 18 year absence of global warming.

We also know that the global warmers have failed to explain why such an absence of warming does not demolish the theory that warming is "caused" by that tiny part of the atmosphere which is human-generated carbon dioxide (about 0.12 per cent by volume, if my memory is correct, of which 40 per cent is absorbed by land and oceans anyway).

And, of course, it's a matter of public record that fat Al Gore and tremulous Tim Flannery and others are standing jokes because of their failed predictions.

But can anybody recall ANY of the global warmers' predictions which have actually come to pass? Remember, the scare stories (usually of the "worse than previously believed" variety) have been running since the late 1970s.

ANY prediction? Anybody?

The disappearance of Arctic ice comes to mind but, of course, everyone knows that's not happening.

Luciferase provides a good example of the oleaginous global warmer.

Once it was clear "global warming" wasn't happening it became "climate change". Once "climate change" wasn't happening and there has been no atmospheric warming for 18 years, the likes of Luciferase slip and slide into "no surface warming".

"Global" means, ummm...global. And it ain't happening.

So what's your personal interest, Luciferase? Part of the Big Green Climate Change Conspiracy and on the public tit, I presume.

Get out now and find another research interest. Beat the rush.