Kevin Trenbirth Hadley Centre,"The fact is we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Email from Jonathon Overpeck to Prof Denning."We must get rid if the Medievil warm period."

These are the same clowns that invented the infamous "Hockey Stick" all based on doctored stats.They have even according to Dr Tim Ball reduced past temps to embellish their present stats.They keep the peer reviews in house to avoid real scrutiny.

see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac&feature=related This a short audio by Dr Tim Ball {historical climatogolist} that is well worth listening to.

so so funny seeing Flannery on the news tonight speaking of the the world's biggest challenge this century. The next item was America in places receiving the earliest snowfalls in History. No wonder they had to change gw into climate change. God must be laughing like crazy as the snow falls on the White House and these high priests talk crap at CopenHagen

Ah the new form of "Denial", ignoring the fact that the skeptics were right all along and the "climate science" is dodgy.

Which is why we were skeptical, it all sounded wrong, there was no link between CO2 and temperature no matter how much you all wanted it, and lo and behold it is all contrived .. oh, and now the original data is lost, wow, what a forking surprise that is, "scientists" losing, or destroying data, yep, that's a real corner of hard science isn't it .. not!

But you all go ahead and firmly fix your heads in the sand and ignore the drama unfolding as "climate scientists" are unveiled for the money grubbing and power hungry little cartels and conspiracies that they they are.

While your heads are stuck in the sand though, you run the risk of someone firmly kicking you up the backside, which you all soundly deserve for being such gullible idiots.

there, someone had to say it .. arrogant sods who didn't understand the reason science, true science, not pseudo "consensus science" is by definition, skeptical!

rstuart

I couldn't seem to locate the two references you cited. However I did start to check the references at the foot of the wikipedia article and lo and behold the first two contained direct reference to a certain English university centre or the UN committeee on climate change, the IPCC ... so I laughed and gave up. Obviously the fraudsters from Hadley were thorough.

keith,

It looks like your penchant for peer reviewed papers supporting AGW can be found in spades in one of todays OLO articles: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9793&page=0

Who knows, if Andy1 and and author of that article, Andrew Glikson, are one and the same, he made have given a better answer to your original three questions that you could have possibly been hoping for.

You should post a comment to the article thanking him for the effort he put in.

I'd love to see some of the emails from the denialists leaked into the public domain.