warmair,

Superb

: )

Tamino has a party with Watts' Ocean Heat Content graph:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/fact-checking-the-cherry-pickers-anthony-watts-edition/

(see, qanda - can't help myself:)

Ok Poirot, I take your point - enjoy 'playing' with them :)

From my perspective, 'fake sceptics' are a waste of time and a waste of space.

Thanks for your tenacity :)

qanda,

yeah, I don't really know what good it does...and I think that because you're a little closer to the front that it rankles you more.

With me it's a bit like skeet shooting. I go about my daily life and have a bit of a look round occasionally - and before you know it some fake skeptic has lobbed another clay target to shoot down.

Had an interesting outcome the other day. I tweeted a link to Michael Mann referring to a shonky article by Lord Monckton over at Jo Nova's.http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/monckton-explains-why-taking-climate-extremists-to-court-works-and-uni-tas-agrees-to-investigate/ Mann responded by setting the record straight on his facebook page, berating Nova for neglecting to fact check Monckton's claim.....and she "amended" the article (probably got the wind up because the piece in question concerned Mann's libel suit against Tim Ball)

Anyway, the point is that she amended Monckton's inaccuracy. Considering all the false blather that goes down on denier sites - that was a win!

"The true face of climate's hockey stick graph revealed."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23247-true-face-of-climates-hockey-stick-graph-revealed.html

Personally I'm having a great time watching all the squirming. AsI see it each of you have your approved site(s) where all data is appropriately screened to achieve the right nuance and the belief that there is only one way to look at the issue.
Then you are presented with all this unapproved data and new ways of viewing it and it comes as a mighty shock.

So we see you all running back to the warmist playbook: sceptics are creationsts, are like Monckton, are paid by big bad capitalists, any data that doesn't give the approved answer is cherry-picked etc. Since I do read both warmist and sceptic commentary and sites, I'm used to seeing this type of stuff from the uniformed but committed warmists. But its still fun to watch the squirming when new ideas are thrown up and you get an inkling as to how much is withheld from the warmists sites. For example, it was revealing that so many of you didn't know about feedbacks when they are absolutely central to the whole saga. They're not talked about so much these days in the warmist realm because the evidence for them is not good and at the very least, ambiguous. But to be so committed to the theory without knowing how important feedbacks are to it, is pretty funny.

Its been especially fun watching qanda squirm as I've exposed his debating technique ie assert that others don't understand this or that while alluding to being fully informed without actually demonstrating it. As its got worse for him, qanda has become increasingly irrational. The latest is a completely ludicrous assertions that sceptics want to use raw, unadjusted data when anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the issue of data (especially temperature data) adjusts ought to know that sceptics, far from being opposed to adjustments, want more of it, beleiving that the adjustments for things like UHIE are currently inadequate. But that's qanda for you - all assertion, no fact.

Since we are showing our favourite pictures I'll drop this one in which I found t'other day....http://greenhousebullcrap.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/blog_global20mean20temp201850-2007.jpg?w=500&h=249