Actually, I'm SO sick of Denialist's flipping the Climategate bird at me (without any actual *thought* behind it) that I've composed the following multiple choice test. I'll just copy and paste this each time Arjay PIGS (Presents — IGNORES — Go-over again) this debate.

Do you even know what was being discussed? Let's try another question: did you even READ the entire EMAILS? Play this short multiple-choice test and see how you go.

* "Hide the decline" of what? Tick one to see if you know what we're talking about.
A: Temperatures
B: Sea-shells
C: Tree-rings
D: Denialist lies

* "Mike's nature trick" refers to:
A: Tricking the journal Nature into believing global temperatures were higher than they actually are
B: Phasing out Tree-ring proxies diverging from instrumental recordings of global temperatures due to drought, temperature change, pollution or acid rain?
C: Stalagmites in caves
D: Denialist's foaming at the mouth in screaming therapy! (Oh the humanity!)

* "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." is about ...
A: A lot of heat went into melting Arctic sea ice or parts of Greenland and Antarctica?
B: Was it because the heat was buried in the ocean ... well below the surface?
C: Was it because the La Nina ... rearranged the configuration of ocean heat?
D: The importance of tracking all of the above as we approach global warming and how urgent it is that we learn to track the REAL and PRESENT danger of climate change even more accurately!

Part 1 (9 minutes) "Nature trick" and "hide the decline" — with a special guest star from Beavis and Butthead;
"We don't need TV to entert-ain us". "Hehehehehe, he said anus!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY

lest we forget climate change was FIRST global cooling
thatcher used to kill big coal unions in uk

libs love it..*a nice new cash/tax grab
now greens/labourites love it too
for the same reason

but now..sold by different bling

how many times have we heard..
'we are the worst emmiters globally'

when in fact we rate 12 th..!
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/qindicators.htm

ie a lie
boldface lies
no good can come from namecalling evil

further we use no nuke power
and little hydro...!

ONCE THESE ARE FACTORED into the model/bling..
we come in lower even than mere 12 th

add in the average cost of 500 EACH
and the euro zone is 96 cents
[that usa has a sceme costing in total less than 6 billion]

and reportedly the nasa satilite datra
telling us the truth...[that the heat is escaping through the sky..out into outerspace]..at a rate that throws any ipcc models out of the window

mate see this is a wealth raising exersize
get it...mr eclypse...[of course you cant]
tell me will nukes power be an option?

you know them radioactive things govts need to dismantle
like the german one being decommisioned since the late eighties
cosing 10 billion so far...and still going..while not having 'generated'..lol c02 free power..for 30 years
but stil chewing up govt funds

recall ge got the whole nuke thing for only one buck?
cause govt couldnt afford decommisioning costs..!

if this topic
is to get nuke power up
mate im telling you your dreaming

ge still is cleaning up
from the nuke scam

and now...cleanming up again
from bulding the green energy scam

its the same same mate
give me your compulsory taxation
and big business will do its thing..with lobby..modeling and bling

and take your taxes..
to add to their bottum line

knowing the media will let people forget
and blog the same ol scam again and a gain

govt money..and your proffits for free..
or fee..

[musnt ignore the paid consultants]
modeling their latest bling

Sonofglion I await my number, as I question almost every thing you say, without doubt I too am a troll what is my number bloke?
Can I ask this? why do you post here, oh I understand you have opinions just as we all do.
But forgive me, it seems you like insulting those who do not agree with you most.
Me? no saint, good LAWD no!loony lefty me, its ok to say that here.
Believe in climate change at least in part made by man, yes ok getting back under my rock.
Stay Lexi, worth the effort.
Us new untouchables, the lefty folk, can take it, in about ten years the McCarthy like Inquisition will be turned around.
By the way, those who know me would giggle at the thought I am from the left, but face it, tea party is driving a wedge in to conservatives in America, we follow them soon Sir Robert Menzies may be considered a lefty.

Dear Belly,

Its spindoc not SOG who's desperately
trying to offend.

Thanks for your kind words.

GrahamY
you're being deliberately sneaky.

<<Hi Eclipsed, you can do trends on climate over whatever period you want, climate doesn't care.>>
Actually it matters a great deal if one is going to pronounce that global warming is over and we are entering a 'cooling' phase all based on a tiny 5 year trend AFTER a massive El Nino.
<<No, I was not referring to ENSO, which is expressed as a pressure differential>>

Oh right, and ENSO doesn't also express itself by radically moving global temperatures around? ;-)

<<It’s long been known that El Niño variability affects the global mean temperature anomalies. 1998 was so warm in part because of the big El Niño event over the winter of 1997-1998 which directly warmed a large part of the Pacific, and indirectly warmed (via the large increase in water vapour) an even larger region.>>
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/

<<An El Niño is associated with warm and very wet weather months April–October ... La Niña is the name for the cold phase of ENSO, during which the cold pool in the eastern Pacific intensifies and the trade winds strengthen.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENSO

<<El Niño involves warming of tropical Pacific surface waters ... and alternate with the opposite phases of below-average temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific (La Niña)>>
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-6-2.html

Other links showing this was the hottest decade on record:
NASA shows 2005 as HOTTER than 1998, and 2007 as drawn with it
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html

Of the 3 temperature records HadCRUT3, NASA GISS and NCDC, only HadCRUT3 actually shows 1998 as the hottest year on record.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature#Weather_satellites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSU_temperature_measurements

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M

Remember what one of your Denialist friends said:
"Make an argument that you can get killed on and you will kill us all…
If you loose credibility on this issue you lose this issue!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4

The Heartland Institute has eagerly latched onto Roy Spencer's research into cloud formation and the impact on global temperature. In keeping with scientific rigour, Spencer's paper was been assessed by Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University and the modeling he used found to be incorrect.

"Spencer's research hinges on the role of clouds in climate change. Mainstream climate researchers agree that climate change happens when carbon dioxide traps heat from the sun in the atmosphere, much in the same way that a windshield traps solar heat in a car on a sunny afternoon. As the planet warms, a side effect is more water vapor in the atmosphere. This water vapor, known to most of us as clouds, traps more heat, creating a viscous loop. [Earth in Balance: 7 Crucial Tipping Points]

Spencer sees it differently. He thinks that the whole cycle starts with the clouds. In other words, random increases in cloud cover cause climate warming. The cloud changes are caused by "chaos in the climate system," Spencer told LiveScience."

However, no climate scientist contacted by LiveScience agreed.

The study finds a mismatch between the month-to-month variations in temperature and cloud cover in models versus the real world over the past 10 years, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist. "What this mismatch is due to — data processing, errors in the data or real problems in the models — is completely unclear....

...Other researchers pointed to flaws in Spencer's paper, including an "unrealistic" model placing clouds as the driver of warming and a lack of information about the statistical significance of the temperatures observed by the satellites. Statistical significance is the likelihood of results being real, as opposed to chance fluctuations unrelated to the other variables in the experiment.

"I cannot believe it got published," said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research."

...The science of Spencer's work proved inextricable from the political debate surrounding global warming. The paper was mostly unnoticed in the public sphere until the Forbes blogger declared it "extremely important."

Cont'd