Jedimaster: "Once again, Leo Lane's contribution gives weight to my hypothesis that there are two cultures arguing using different languages."

You might enjoy this. It ponders the same observation from a slightly different viewpoint.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/01/climate-uncertainties-and-the-problems-communicating-them.ars

Leo Lane: "Robert Carter has explained that trends are dependent on the starting point which is chosen. A starting point of 700 years ago, gives a temperature trend which is down."

Odd. Here is one graph of temperature (moving 5 year average) for the last 2,000 years. It doesn't matter where you take the starting point. At no time has it been it hotter than now.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

As for Bob Carter's argument - I have never understood it. The main claim of the climate scientists is they have developed models that "predict" the earth's climate for about the last 1 million years or so. Here "predict" means it was calculated from some formula. On that basis they say their models should do a reasonable job of predicting the next 100 years or so. I think it is a fairly strong argument. The only problem is, as far as I can tell no one has seen fit to put all the evidence on one page. At least I have not been able to find a page the lists the models, their basic assumptions, their outputs and compares them to the real thing.

That aside, strip away the noise and Carter's argument must boil down to "the models are wrong". If so, it should not be difficult to show it. Just present the output of a few models used by the IPCC and illustrate they are indeed wrong. As far as I am aware, he has never done that. Instead all he says is what is happening now it not historically unusual. Maybe he is right in saying that, but regardless it is utterly beside the point. It is a bit like pregnancy. The question is not whether "unexpected" pregnancies are unusual or not, but whether we can predict whether they will happen, and perhaps use that information to do something about it.

Horus,
there's this on the hacked emails: http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/ or this from New Scientist: http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
And there's factcheck, who claim to be disinterested and independent: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/ . Official assessments are pending but I'm confident they'll exonerate the alleged miscreants.
But let's face it, no assessment will be valid in your eyes unless it agrees with your prejudice.

Geoff says:

“twist it to say I'm not an honest scientist, in other words a liar. And then to claim I have "disdain for the truth". Bye”

You may not be dishonest, Geoff, you may be just incompetent.

Did you also have disdain for Robert Carter’s explanation of trends, which I carefully set out above?

I thought it would settle you down, because it clarifies the issues upon which you appear to be confused.

Mitchell,

There we have it again.
AGWers show A-M-A-Z-I-N-G prescience.

1) They can tell the inner workings/motivations of their opponents minds:
“But let's face it, no assessment will be valid in your eyes unless it agrees with your prejudice.”

2) They can tell the outcome of reports before they’re concluded:
“Official assessments are pending but I'm confident they'll exonerate the alleged miscreants”.

3)They can predict the climate decades ,even centuries into the future.

And yesterday on ABC radio, one was even able to divine that sceptics were unemployed layabouts! "They have nothing else to do. They don't have day jobs so they can put all their efforts into misinforming and miscommunicating climate science to the general public” http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/25/2800992.htm

As for your independent sources:
Having been a long time reader of NewScientist I would never characterise it ( on AGW issues) as “independent” i.e. “ Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant…Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent… Affiliated with or loyal to no one political party or organization…not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/independent

Likewise your other sources
i) Greenfyreword Press and
ii) Factcheck.org
Both appear zealously committed to the AGW cause.
All they've seemed to have done was skim-read the emails and declare them of no consequence ; no interviews , no hard drive forensics –just a Delphic Oracle-like determination .


And Factcheck lip-syncs the IPCC apostles creed:“ The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments. Consequently, there is at every stage full opportunity for experts in the field to draw attention to any piece of literature and its basic findings that would ensure inclusion of a wide range of views. There is, therefore, no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed.” [ROFLMAO]

All rather hollow in the light subsequent events:
1) GlacierGate http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/un-apologises-for-flawed-glacier-prediction/story-e6frg6so-1225822246312
Which was used to manipulate opinion and extract funding
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/glacier-claims-won-grants/story-e6frg6nf-1225823060661

2) DisasterGate http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

Bugsy

Of course Carter’s comments, in numerous public speaking engagements, in the mainstream (and not so mainstream) media, and on blog spots - are NOT at odds with his own article “There IS a problem with global warming – it stopped in 1998”.

Graham knows this and is just playing with words (and resorting to his usual ad-hom and personal attack) to justify his stance. But, let’s wait to see how he replies to your post - if he does at all.

Google “Bob Carter” + “I did NOT say global warming stopped in 1998” returns zero results.
Google “Bob Carter” + “global warming stopped in 1998” returns > 28,000 results.

I am not surprised by this.

Marc Morano, James Inhoffe or our own Steve Fielding certainly wouldn’t retract what Carter says... why would they when Carter himself links to his own article as a chest-beating gesture on his very own web site?
_______

Geoff,

<< why is everyone still using the now-much-reviled Hadley data? Because it makes a better story to say cooling since 1998, rather than cooling since 2005? >>

Precisely, although I’m of the understanding that 2009 is now tied with 2005 using other data sets. And all this when Carter says the “cooling" is due to low sun-spot activity. House to a brick, Carter will spruik in years to come something like global warming stopped in 2015.

I agree, the moderator does slip in the odd foul slur and sprays defamatory comments himself from time to time, particularly on memes close to his hobby horse. It’s a shame he doesn’t stick to his own rules, but then – one could hardly admonish or suspend oneself, could they?

Horus,
it's just too tedious to debate the vacuous argument you try to make. I can't read minds, but if you look at the emails as these scrutinies do, there is no substance to the so-called scandal. Can you show me a fair analysis that 'can' sustain, via line and verse, that the emails do substantiate a climategate scandal? I'd love to see it! Those who claim they have tried to look impartially so far say that the quotes are misrepresented and taken out of context. Unless you can show otherwise, you have no evidence, just prejudice. I am confident about the outcome of the official findings because the conspiracy nutters are unable to make their sh!t stick, apart from an inevtiable residue. No one claims, do they? that they "can predict the climate decades ,even centuries into the future.". Well not with any degree of acuracy. I don't make any predictions, but the experts are doing their best to make forecasts based on the evidence. Their overall diagnosis of AGW makes logical sense to me.
As for the rest of your last; there's nothing there mate, so I'll let you fret about it.
Have a good day