Hi Poirot,

Here's another pin for your balloon:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/another-ipcc-ar5-reviewer-speaks-out-no-trend-in-global-water-vapor/

If there's a sort of continuum from

rock-solid believer,
to comfortable-believer,
to mild-believer,
to someone with misgivings,
to doubter,
to agnostic,
to sceptic,
to cynic,
to denier,

put me down across the doubter/agnostic part of spectrum - until this current controversy is sorted out.

Wouldn't it be great to know absolutely 100 % that there was a god, or gods - no more doubts, ever ! To be able to go cocksure through life. Alas, it's not to be, ever.

But happy reading, Poirot.

Merry Christmas and lots of love,

Joe

Joe grab the nearest news paper, you can do it on line steer clear of Murdock,s trash.
See the report both parts the part international power wants us to read, saying it is a fraud.
Then the truth, MAN IS PLAYING A ROLE FOR SURE.
Then every one of us, can tell ours selF man would not do that.
Why would humanity defecate in its own nest.
After all we have done nothing to harm, ah,hang on , thinking, thinking.
MMMM

Okay Loudmouth...(happily I won't ever fall for your smarm again :)

Fancy linking to WUWT - a "skeptic" "blog" run by a weatherman

Here's a pin for your balloon.

Forrest Mims - "I am an expert reviewer.."

Here's a little something on so-called "expert reviewers"...Lord Monckton signed up for that lark, and the goon who leaked the IPCC draft did the same.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/12/13/major-ipcc-report-draft-leaked-then-cherry-picked-climate-sceptics

"...practically anyone can register for these positions using an online form. Nobody appoints 'expert reviewers'...."

http://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-draft-leak-global-warming-not-solar.html

OK, thanks Poirot, I'll just wait for the UK Met Office to confirm or deny that graph, one way or the other.

Joe

Go for it, Loudmouth....you'll be in cherry-picking good company.

"The IPCC considers its draft reports, prior to acceptance, to be pre-decisional, provided in confidence to reviewers, and not for public distribution, quotation or citation."

I note all the denailists had apoplexy when Peter Gleick leaked info from Heartland - they condemned him outright. Strange how they're all singing along and doing the cherry-picker's waltz with this lot.

Poirot,

Surely you're not suggesting that anything fraudulent should ever be covered up ?

'Cherry-picking' usually refers to identifying relatively inconsequential and minor flaws in reports or statements, and using them improperly to damn the whole report/statement - in this case, what is at issue is precisely central to the whole AGW debate: has warming continued since the late nineties, or not ?

Just in case it may come up, I would be bit wary of using the 'fifteen years isn't long enough' argument - down the track, if global warming picks up again, its doubters can use the same argument to advise AGAINST acting 'until global warming has been continuing unabated for fifteen years': what's sauce for the goose ......

I'm content to wait for the UK Met Office to clarify.

Joe