For those bloggers who prefer to take their data neat, it's hard to go past the Website Realclimate.org (http://www.realclimate.org) particular, there is an extensive article dated 17 Jan 2010 "If It’s That Warm, How Come It’s So Damned Cold?"by James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato, and Ken Lo. It has at this date, 681 responses, which are exemplary of people trying to clarify this particularly abstruse area of knowledge. The article addresses the issue of the very cold December experienced in much of the North America and Europe (but not Alaska)

I've printed off the article to check with Monckton's comments at lunch on Wednesday. Yes- I'm prepared to pay $60 to experience his performance and the response of several hundred other adults.

Bugsy and Q&A, one of the reasons that I am skeptical of the claims of global warming alarmists is because of the rhetorical tactics that they/you use. Google can turn up 28,000 results for "Bob Carter" + "global warming stopped in 1998", yet you can't point to one of them where he actually says it. A closer look at the results shows that a fair proportion of the results are from people like yourselves misrepresenting him on the basis of the newspaper headline and trying to fit him up as a nutter. So you use the extent of your own misrepresentation as proof that it must be true!

One of the links even has Tim Lambert riffing on this tactic and trying to extend it to Richard Lindzen because Lindzen points out, as Carter does, there has been no temperature rise in 10 years. You must think that pinning this accusation on an opponent is devastating.

And yes, I can see Marc Morano doing the same thing on the other side, which is just the sort of thing that happens when one side starts to play this sort of game. The other side thinks they need to be in it too, or they will lose the war - it's called escalation.

Then when I point out this is dishonest you will claim that as an ad hominem attack on you! Shall we put logic down as another of your areas of weakness?

The fact that Bob Carter hasn't put out a media release denying he said it doesn't make it true that he did. That it is listed amongst 148 opinion articles that he has written using the title it was published as doesn't prove anything either, except that Bob is a diligent and accurate curator of his own material.

As you no doubt understand, Carter's point is about the degree of correlation between CO2 and temperature, not whether there is one.

Actually Graham, I too am sceptical of global warming alarmists - you do know this. As I have said many times before, there are extremists on both sides.

Unfortunately, far too many "sceptics" think that the vast majority of scientists (who publish their work leading to the robustness of AGW) are somehow global warming "alarmists" - they are not.

I only comment here under a nom de plume because I feel less constrained in my personal opinions (as opposed to the usual dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's). Certainly, if I comment under my true identity (it is well disguised) I would be more circumspect - but then you would not be reading my personal opinions. While OLO is an opinion site, it is probably one of the best in Oz.

Having said that, I will freely admit to being 'loose' sometimes, and that I do have a bias. The former due to my frustration at "sceptics" inability to understand the basics, the latter due to my qualified experience.

Moreover, I (really) do acknowledge Bob Carter as a true sceptic (in the scientific sense) - as well as Dick Lindzen and Roy Spencer for that matter. However, Christopher Monckton (and Al Gore) is another breed or kettle of fish altogether - and I am depressingly disappointed with Ian Plimer, for that matter.

Now, how about replying to the comment:

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

I would not trust any of the data coming out of the IPCC,NASA etc because of the power and influence Wall St and the Global Banks have over our Govts and the UN.They want the carbon derivatives/taxes since this will make energy more expensive for the consumer,while they make more profits.

As C Monkton says,even if all the doomsayers are right,there is nothing in the short term that we can do about it,since the likes of China and India will be given an amnesty to burn carbon to manufacture our consumerables.

There are better ways of tackling the problems of pollution and environmental degradation,than making the elites all powerful.

The reality is this,fossil fuels will run out soon and as the technology gets better with solar,people will become more independant with sourcing their energy supplies.The elites have small window of opportunity to effect their World Govt and have total control.This is why Copenhagen was such a rushed affair and luckily it failed.

The two big things that control us today is energy [fossils fuels]owned by a few large Corporates and the generation of money from nothing by the Global Banks.With the imminent collapse of the $ US,the next agenda will be a global currency owned by this World Govt and it's bankers.

The corporates like the Rothschilds heavily finance the Green Movement and they only want to advance their own power base with the noble cause of saving the planet,hence we have the perversion of climate stats to suit their agendas.

I have tried three times to post to the blog. Once I got a pop up
to say that I was disallowed because of the Australian government stopping my posts... I signed in then it dropped out.

Lord M and Prof P lunch cost $130 in Brisbane has already 440 prepaid
participants. There is a cheaper talk at $20 in Brisbane. The Canberra venue, the press have now agreed to attend. Hurray!

I got a warning that this website was off limits, and my emails were
being monitored by the government. Well Kev - Hi there.

If what they have to say is so controversial why the protection on this website for preventing people of every point of view from voicing
their opinions.

I am hoping this post gets through.

Note: Evil will truimph if a few good men (and women) do nothing.

ajay: I totally agree with you, but am afraid our emails are being
monitored by the Australian Government... who cares. 'Hello Kev et al!"

Science is the study of natural things and phenomena. Via accepted scientific processes and experiment, etc. The data has been corrupted. The political census is obvious... some want to by foul means or fair want to change the global status quo. And Australia has been pulled in.

If undeveloped countries often through their own governments mismanagement, want to receive taxes controlled by a global administrator to ostensibly pay them at a developed countries' expense
and their citizens ultimately to equalize monitory means, then it's a scam. We are not to blame for their status quo why should our citizens, farmers or industrialists pay for some undeveloped country's dictator to feather his own nest? We expect the standard of living we have, we pay taxes and although pay aid to disadvantaged countries we shouldn't be taxed because we have a better standard of living?

CO2 is not causing climate change. Methane gas emitted from our dear
old cow and sheep, is not causing climate change and the Greens wish
to make everyone a vegan or vegetarian as meat eaters are contributing
to climate change, even 'if' all CO2 emissions stopped tomorrow?
As per SBS ads on 'Save the planet' Don't all people sense something
is dreadfully wrong with the science proffered by climate alarmists?