The front page of The Australian (22/2/13) carries an article by Environmental Editor Graham Lloyd, in which he reports the comments from Railway Engineer and Soft Porn writer Rajendra Pashauri.

The UN’s climate change chief acknowledges the “17 year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed by the British Met Office”. Also reported is the forecast of no further increases to 2017, a total pause of 21 years.

This trend would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” he suggests to break the long term global warming trend. Not that he mentions how he arrived at the 30 to 40 years figure. So add 9 years to the 21 year pause predicted and if no further warming occurs, Pashauri can resume his writing career. Unless of course, there is further warming at any level after say 8.5 years onwards?

Lloyd points out that “Pashauri’s view contrasts with the arguments in Australia that views outside the orthodox position of approved climate scientists should be left unreported”. Thanks to ABC and others.

Dr. Pashauri is also quoted as acknowledging that the renewables industry “faced an uncertain future” (read collapsed by 90%) and the carbon trading markets had “slumped”. (by this he also means collapsed by 90%). No mention of the expiry of his beloved Kyoto.

Pashauri comments widely on the conformity with trends, he fails to mention that this new conformity is not related to failed predictions but rather with the IPCC’s conformity with the trend of empirically evidenced events.

Whilst warming the hearts of skeptics, he induces a sinking feeling amongst the warmists and the censorial media.

Unless of course, in inviting the “vital debate”, the warmists can explain (?) his latest position?

<<Rajendra Pashauri… acknowledges the “17 year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed by the British Met Office”. Also reported is the forecast of no further increases to 2017, a total pause of 21 years.>>

I hope he cleared it with Qanda before making that admission!

That's a laugh!

In "The Australian" you say....how terrifically unusual and unbiased!

It's like you holding up an article from WUWT as neutral on AGW.

Yup - if you want your climate science with butter and bias, the Australian is the place to go.

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/australian-s-climate-correction

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/12/05/the-australians-war-on-science-54/

SPQR, Shush! qanda has not yet cleared it with himself!

It takes a while for reality to bond with emotive arguments, especially if those arguments are generated by the guru’s who now contradict their own orthodoxy.

We will no doubt shortly hear that Pashauri is a richard head, knows nothing about climate science, has failed to predict a single weather/climate event in the past 18 years, is a traitor to the cause, his science has failed to gain traction with 194 nations for a replacement for Kyoto, the renewable energy industry, the emissions trading markets and explain why the former Kyoto signatories are shifting to fossil fuel based energy production. Not to mention the stream of irrelevant links to their failed pseudo-science and the fact that these statement were published in The Australian, thus invalidating anythjing Pashauri has to say.

I say irrelevant pseudo science because it is no longer good enough to convince even their own supporters however, we can still expect them to ignore the reality and post even more links to that which has already failed them. That is what religious ideology does to soft minds.

So, SPQR, be patient, all will be revealed by Madame Poirot, warmair, qanda et al, as they try to explain to us deniers, why Pashauri has abandoned them and their “science” has failed even those who once supported them.

Be gentle with them for they are victims from the shallow end of the gene pool. We are yet to hear from Madame Poirot who will tell us that it has absolutely nothing to do with Pashauri’s comments; it is all about the fact that it was The Australian that published them

Here's the article:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

You missed these bits, spindoc.

"Dr Pachauri said global average temperatures had plateaued at record levels and that the halt did not disprove global warming."

(that's "record levels".......9 of the 10 warmest years have been this century)

"What is quite perceptible is, in the last 50 years, the trend is upwards...what you should be concerned about is the trend, and that is being influenced now to a large extent by human actions."

He is saying that it would take between a thirty and forty year halt for it to be considered that the long-term upward temperature trend has been broken.

Nice spinning, spindoc.

(Perhaps you can get a job with the Australian)

Thanks Poirot but we can actually read for ourselves, contrary to your intellectual fallacies. Your problem is, can you read?

What we were asking is how you “feel” about the shift in alarmism as promoted by the IPCC? I guess your answer is “whatever Pashauri says is spot on with my thinking”. Yeh, we get that. You sound so much like Bill Shorten?

You once told us that we faced Armageddon, now you tell us that it is not Armageddon but it “will” be Armageddon, maybe, at some stage, if we don’t listen to you and your science, after all Pashauri does not admit he was wrong, just misguided. Yep, we get it. Unfortunately you don’t. In your view it’s all about mitigation of previous declarations.
AR1 through 4 are good, AR 5 draft is bad?

Your prophets don’t seem to agree with you but no matter, you can always abuse the messenger and hey, who reads The Australian anyway?

Desperation always embraces its own stupidity, so why would anyone believe the IPCC? Ah well, we can always socialize Pashauri’s comments as, Ah well, these are not really his comments because they were from The Australian, so who believes them?

It must be very painful to have to justify the comments of your own high priest when he refutes that upon which you have built your obsession. You are looking really silly at this moment. Nothing new but it is refreshing for the skeptics. Perhaps we could have this article published in “Crikey” which might change the authenticity of the comments?

You are such a dud.

Great, spindoc....it only took six posts on this thread for the religious jargon to appear. (you get the RJ prize for this page;)

Right on time (ding!)

Poirot,

If the IPCC, James Hansen, Phil Jones and the Met Office tell us there has been no warming since 1997, then who are we to contradict them?

The whole point is that during the last seventeen years we have been told that CAGW was causing climate change. This was not true because during that period there was no global warming, we now know we were conned.

It serves no intellectual purpose to justify the lie by suggesting Ah! But it will warm according to our failed models and there will still be Armageddon. It gets even worse if you suggest that taking blah blah into account, redistribute the averages, force the feedback blah blah and take into account our litany of failed predictions, we are still facing catastrophe.

It is a complete crock; a busted flush and an ex-parrot (pardon the pun).

If it isn’t a crock, would you care to advise us how, given this public announcement, you see your “science” possibly producing a Kyoto replacement, growth in renewables industry and restoration of the global emissions trading markets?

Surely you must have some ideas?

spindoc,

Global average temperatures have plateaued at "record" levels."

http://skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html

"Right now we're in the midst of a period where most short-term effects are acting in the cooling direction, dampening global warming. Many climate "skeptics" are trying to capitalise on this dampening, trying to argue that "this time" global warming has stopped, even though [warming] didn't stop after the global warming pauses 1973-1980, 1980-1988, 1988-1995, 1995-2001 or 1998-2005."

"As Figure 1 shows, over the last 37 years one can identify overlapping short windows of time when climate :skeptics" could have argued that global warming had stopped. And yet over the entire period in question containing these six cooling trends, the underlying trend is one of rapid global warming (0.27C per decade)....And while the global warming trend spans many decades, the longest cooling trend over this period is 10 years, which proves that each was caused by short term noise dampening the long-term trend."

P.S. I know the term "long-term trend" means nothing to "skeptics" so I'm expecting the usual display of hairy-chested denial (not to mention spindoc's special brand of self-congratulatory sitcom banter:)

I can't see that humans have the foresight or the self-motivating impetus to deal with warming anyway...so it seems we'll just have to lump it like a bunch of dumb frogs in a pot.

"Homo sapiens" must be the most inaccurate title ever given to a species.

P, so the Australian is one eyed propaganda?
They reported the North Pole is decreasing.

>>"Arctic ice cap gone by end of decade," The Australian, September 2012.<<
This article included a comment from Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery that the news was "a significant wake-up call", and a risk for coastal communities, infrastructure and ecosystems right around the world including in Australia.

Another member of the Climate Commission, Will Steffen described the Arctic melting as a "trigger" and suggested that the Arctic will be ice-free between 2016 and 2030. (The Sunday Age, article by Ben Cubby, September 23).

We have not yet read statements from Flannery or Steffen to the effect that the increase in Antarctic ice is a "go back to sleep" signal, or that increasing Antarctic ice presents a risk of falling sea levels on our coastlines.

One pole grows while the other diminishes, climate scientists do not have a clue about short term trends. Long term can be found in the fossil record, but anomalies of a few hundred years mean nothing let alone the ridiculous 40 year make or break scenario this gravy train clown Pachauri spouts…it’s the weather.

sonofgloin,

On Arctic ice loss:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/cryosat-2-confirms-stunning-arctic-ice-loss/#more-6268

Poirot>>...so it seems we'll just have to lump it like a bunch of dumb frogs in a pot.<<

Just another “mythy” subject comes to mind in that statement P.

For twenty years the scientists have told us that amphibians (frogs in particular) are as good as gone. As I type away at my keyboard at night, the croak of calling frogs breaks the silence each and every time it rains. Further those bloody Cane Toads are expanding across our nation at speed.

Belly and yourself bagged me for accepting observation over scientific reporting. All I can say is that the frogs are putting up staunch resistance around my neck of the nape.

Poirot>> sonofgloin,

On Arctic ice loss:<<

No P, we know about Arctic ice loss, tell me about Antarctic ice gain occurring simultaneously. That was the point to my post.

sonofgloin,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-24/antarctic-ice-sheet-warming-faster-than-thought-study/4442722

Poirot,

You are being played like a cat with a mouse. More alarmism, more links, more white knuckles as you desperately cling to the last remnants of the pseudo-science you so passionately embraced.

I marvel at your tenacity as the Hans Christian Andersen fable ends in “The King has no clothes”. Why on earth you think that linking to more of the failed alarmism, failed models and failed science that you swallowed is baffling, admirable but baffling.

Skeptics don’t care, nothing personal, we just feel vindicated. You are not going to convince us otherwise because it is your own sources that have walked away. If even they are not convinced, where does that leave you? Other than being in denial?

Get over it Poirot, find some other topic to obsess over, you are going to make yourself ill.

22/02/2013 [The Australian ] Rajendra Pashauri… acknowledges the “17 year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed by the British Met Office”. Also reported is the forecast of no further increases to 2017, a total pause of 21 years.

Yet, five minutes ago [ABC Radio Nation, The Science Show] Bill Press (President American Association for the Advancement of Science) was STILL talking about(spruiking) a world growing inexorable warmer!

It appears that some of our highly placed science spokespersons have not caught up with their readings.

Here's a scientist talking about global warming in relation to Lloyd's report.

http://theconversation.edu.au/time-to-stop-hiding-behind-warming-trends-12400

"....What we would like, though, is for science to be reported as science, and for opinion to be reported as opinion. And for all reporting to be accurate......The Met office predicts record global mean temperature over the next five years - now that's news."

Here's a "non-scientist" on Pachauri (one Monckton of Brenchley)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/#more-80326

It's charming to see the "skeptics" fizzing and popping like they're at a kiddies party..... but the reality is that they don't have a clue.

From your link P.

>>A re-analysis of temperature records from 1958 to 2010 revealed an increase of 2.4 degrees Celsius over the period, three times the average global rise.<<

A "RE ANALYSIS"?

What? They have now thrown out the window the 2009/08/07/06/05/04/03/02/01/00 analysis.

I think your throwing another "hockey stick" at us again. Why don't you alarmists quote the "hockey stick" of doom anymore P?

We found out it was a lie. That the perameters were moved...if sea rise is true, why did your lot lie about their research?

Ah the Flat Earther's have got themselves in a tizz again. I do love it when you lot get all fired up, it really adds to my day.

Spindoc starts with;

“This trend would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” he suggests to break the long term global warming trend.”. Question my friend, did he actually say the very words “30 to 40 years at least” as you suggest or not?

Then we have the British Met predictions.

“Taking into account the range of uncertainty in the forecast and observations, it is very likely that 2013 will be one of the warmest ten years in the record which goes back to 1850, and it is likely to be warmer than 2012.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/2013-global-forecast

You would have us turf out the very good global warming science on such a prediction? Way balmier than I had thought possible.

You know how the hull of a sailing ship disappears below the horizon well before the mast and sails are gone...well just think about it for a moment lads.

SPQR,

Yes, God bless the ABC and others. They will need time to adjust and get their “stories” straight. The socialization of science takes a while and in the meantime they seem to have opted for censorship.

We are fortunate in Australia that we have an election this year. Looking at the betting it seems we can dispatch the ALP, the CO2 Tax and the Department of Climate Change with one foul stroke of the electoral Hockey Stick.

The warmertariat are out of ammo but I’m sure they will come up with more scary stories. After this election we should get Tim Flannery to hand pick freshly redundant warmers and make them visit every school in Australia to reverse for our children, all the frightening stories they have inflicted upon them.

The latest tally of new skeptical recruits now includes;

The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4),

The RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years (h/t to Werner Brozek for determining these values).

IPCC’s climate “science” panel has admitted there has been no global warming for 17 years,

London Met Office admits no warming for 17 years

James Hansen, NASA’s GISS is in agreement Hadley Centre/CRU findings.

Better late than never I guess but I can’t help thinking that from say 2002 to 2012, when the developed nations were responding to their threats by gutting their industrial capacity and economies, these toads knew they were wrong and would never have come clean without the persistent challenges from real science. We should throw the lot in gaol.

The only one missing in action is Michael Mann. Perhaps he fears we might flog him with his own “hockey stick”? What an embarrassing schmuck!

sonofgloin,

Do you consider that the science is settled...because scientists do not. They are the skeptics (as opposed to "skeptics").

Why do you consider it bad form to re-analyse as more and better data becomes available?

Regarding the hockey-stick, I'll reprise this article in which Michael Mann discusses that issue amongst other things.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/climate_scientist_michael_mann_fights_back_against_skeptics/2516/

"Widespread bad-faith assaults on science have no place in a functioning democracy..."

There is no "lie".

There are cliches habitually sprayed about by denialists - and there is the politicisation of science by those who which to maintain the status quo.

So if frogs are heard near sonofgloin's window when it rains, who needs all that bothersome science and research?

Obviously they can be heard all the way from the Amazon, Asia and central Europe.

That settles it for me!

The key here is simple : whether or not Rajendra Pashauri is accurately reported.

Poirot and CSteele as is their usual habit whenever someone introduces anything challenging to one of their pet theory’s go into the wounded bird (goose?) routine in an endeavor to lead the danger away from the nest.

It matters not one iota what Poirot’s ABC or The conversation links might say about sea ice or nasty comments, or what CSteele can cherry pick from a Met report, or that Wobbles is playing with his pet frog, again.

Did Rajendra Pashauri say what is reported --yes or no?

Who cares, we have it on good authority he's only a railway engineer.

Satellite evidenece has shown for a long time that the Earth has not warmed for 17 yrs. Extreme weather does not = global warming.

Dear Arjay,

You wrote;

“Satellite evidenece (sic) has shown for a long time that the Earth has not warmed for 17 yrs.”

A long time? Oh I would say less than a year.

Wouldn't you?

Dear Spindoc,

Perhaps you can help me as spindoc seems to have lost his tongue. Did Rajendra Pashauri actually say the very words “30 to 40 years at least” as suggested in the original post of this thread?

Sorry that should have been SPQR.

Actually to illustrate how absurd this is refute the following if you will.

Over the last 13 years the world has warmed notably.

Over the last 20 years the world has warmed considerably.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Jan_2013_v5.5.png

Dear CSteele (aka chief witness for the defence)

The court is here to decide whether or not Mr Rajendra Pashauri who “has chaired the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since 2002 and has been director general of The Energy and Resources Institute since 2001” actually made the statement that there had been a “17 year pause in global temperatures rises”

In the capacities of both the chair of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the director general of The Energy and Resources Institute Mr Rajendra Pashauri will have been privy to the very best and very latest research --and as we have been led to believe by warmist sources -- would have weighed and sifted all the evidence and formed the best/most likley conclusions

If after having been party to all that, Mr Rajendra Pashauri found fit to make the statement that there has been “17 year pause in global temperatures rises”.The members of the court can draw their own conclusions about the implications for the AGW theory ,OR alternatively, draw their own conclusions about its implications for IPCC research or perhaps, the IPCC executive selection process.

The court will not allow extraneous evidence from sources (however reputable) such as Dr Roy Spencer.Please Confine yourself testimony to the case in session-- or I will hold you in contempt and sent you to the little room out the back to cool your heels, with Poirot and Wobbles.

csteele,

“Perhaps you can help me as spindoc seems to have lost his tongue. Did Rajendra Pashauri actually say the very words “30 to 40 years at least” as suggested in the original post of this thread?”

Answer, absolutely yes.

Read it for yourself at the link provided by Poirot. If you can’t get past the pay wall, log on to GWPF site and you will find the full article reproduced.

Now that you have got us all excited about challenging this quote, what point do you wish to make?

Do you wish to sanitize Pashauri’s words, do you wish to feast upon the “30 to 40 years at least” comment, is it just another diversion from the painful facts, do you need someone else to do the arithmetic, do you want to desperately sift through Pashauri’s “escape clauses” or are we going to see one of your better examples of post-modernist deconstructions and socialization?

We wait with great anticipation.

You remind me of the story of W.C. Fields on his death bed. His family gathered round only to find him thumbing through the pages of the Bible. But W.C. they asked, you are an atheist, why are you reading the Bible? He replied, “Just looking for loophole’s sweetie, just looking for loopholes”.

Just as an aside, and addressing the "skeptics here referring to Pachauri as merely a "railway engineer", I came upon Lord Monckton laying out his CV in a letter of complaint to the ABC.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/abc-helen-caldicott-sinks-to-mocking-the-unwell-monckton-responds/

Groud 2 deals with his "right" to call himself a member of the House of Lords.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/

Ground 3 states:

"Dr Caldicott inaccurately stated that I do not know any science However I have a degree in Classical Architecture from the University of Cambridge, and the degree course included instruction in mathematics. I was last year's Nurenberg Lecturer in Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario. I have contributed several papers to the learned science journals on climate science and economics, have lectured on climate science at universities on three continents at faculty as well as undergraduate level, and am an expert reviewer for the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report of the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. I have testified four times before the U.S. Congress on climate science."

On his role as an expert reviewer:

http://www.readfearn.com/2012/11/lord-moncktons-new-climate-role-for-the-ipcc-isnt-what-it-appears/

Anyone can register as an expert reviewer.

On his testimonies before congress:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/21/climate-scientists-christopher-monckton

spindoc, you could learn much in the "spin" department if you concentrate on Monckton as your mentor.

Just thought I'd add - as an addendum to the coat of arms thingy above Lord Monckton's letter - that Anthony Watts has come up with an alternative.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/condensed-monckton/

(apologies to Andy Warhol)

Who says climate debate isn't fun : )

Dear Poirot,

This is indeed fun and something that keeps on giving.

Dear Spindoc and SPQR,

Firstly a small correction, I am the chief prosecutor. Along with the Australian you all stand accused of hyping a 'loop hole' into a charge that the entire body of work on global warming should now be dismissed. It is ignorant, self serving tripe and you all should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves however let us look at the paltry evidence you have provided to support your very weak defence.

The loop hole is of course the 17 year mark with which you have chosen to make your case. As I have submitted in my prosecutor's brief the assertion that the global temperature has not increased only works at about that figure. It falls down for instance if it is 13 years or 20 years, or 25 years, or 30 years or 35 years.

So what evidence did you bring to this court to defend the charges?

Exhibit 1. Quote from defendant SPQR - “Mr Rajendra Pashauri found fit to make the statement that there has been “17 year pause in global temperatures rises” “.

The prosecution submits this is false, that Mr Pashauri at no time made the statement that there has been “17 year pause in global temperatures rises”. These were not his words. May I draw the court's attention to the defendent's supporting document, an article in the less than completely reputable broadsheet The Australian dated Feb 2, 2013.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

Within the body of the piece by reporter Graham Lloyd you will find no direct quote from Mr Pahauri with the said words ascribed to him by the defendant.

I request this court finds the defendant SPQR to be an unreliable witness and that any further evidence he provides is view with the appropriate degree of suspicion.

Cont..

Cont..

Exhibit 2. Quote from defendant Spindoc in reply to a question “Did Rajendra Pashauri actually say the very words “30 to 40 years at least” as suggested in the original post of this thread?” put by this very officer of the court - “Answer, absolutely yes.”

The prosecution again submits this is false, that Mr Pashauri at no time made the statement that there has been “30 to 40 years at least”. These were not his words. May I draw the court's attention to the defendant’s supporting document, the same article quoted by our first defendant.

Within the body of the piece by reporter Graham Lloyd you will find no direct quote from Mr Pahauri with the said words ascribed to him by the defendant. While the prosecution acknowledges the sub editor's summary paragraph at the head of the article may well give the impression that the words “30 to 40 years at least” were a direct quotation, any careful reading of the article itself will show that Mr Lloyd was a little more circumspect.

“He said that it would be 30 to 40 years "at least" before it was possible to say that the long-term upward trend in global temperatures had been broken.”

I request this court also finds the defendant Spindoc to be an unreliable witness but ask that the court is measured in its condemnation since unlike the first defendant his crime was lack of thoroughness rather than blatant misquoting.

I await further submissions from the defense.

Delving a little further into Lord Monckton's claim to veracity on the issue of climate - his claim that he has "...contributed several papers to the learned journals on climate science..."

Not a peer-reviewed paper in sight...because this fella has no expertise to argue the science.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9906&page=0#162536

This, perhaps, was a s close as he got:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

A newsletter attached to a journal - which I presume is what he means by contributing to learned journals on climate science. It's merely his opinion (and the APS inserted a disclaimer above his piece)

The "skeptic" movement's Crown Prince complains in his letter to the ABC about being labelled a "charlatan".

But everything about his claims and conduct appear to fit the definition perfectly.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charlatan

Dear CSteele,

Let the court remind all that what is being determined here is whether or not Mr Pachauri affirmed the proposition that there has been a << 17 year pause in global temperature rises>>.

As such, all the *excited* comments and links from Ms Poirot about Lord Monckton are ruled inadmissible and are stricken from the record. If Ms Poirot wishes to start a witch hunt about Lord Monckton she is welcome to start a new thread. The court orders that Ms Poirot be removed from the court --and in view of some of her recent ranting’s the court recommends she, also, undergo a narcotics swab.

With regard to the other defence witness Mr Steele. Let me remind you Mr Steele that although the court does make some allowances for your behavior –mindful as we are , that you are more familiar with the Sharia system, having been Mr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s private counsel for 10 years – we will be operating under Australian legal etiquette in this session –so please, behave.

The prosecution has tabled two new pieces of evidence which in the courts view support their case –and quite frankly, also in the courts view, kicks the crap out of the defence teams case:

Firstly, the prosecution has noted the defence (nitpicking) contention that because the words << 17 year pause in global temperature rises>> are not enclosed in quotation marks they may not reflect Mr Pachauri’s intent.

The prosecution has responded that the reporter who recorded the remarks , is a professional reputable person with many years experience and no reason to fabricate things – he simply reported what was relayed to him . Further –and more telling -- the prosecution refers the court to the case of Monbiot v. Plimer http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9891#160058 in which it was established that one Mr Plimer (who some claimed was wrongly cited) had the option to sue. And since “ 34 days [had transpired] since George Monbiot accused Ian Plimer of lying and fabrication…[and] Mr Plimer [had not instigated] legal action against Monbiot, the ABC or the Guardian.” The remarks were likely to be true. Accordingly, the prosecution argues that as it has now been a week –the talk at Deakin (from memory was 15th Feb) –and though widely reported and commented on -- no objection had been raised by Mr Pachauri the remarks in the Australia are likely to accurately reflect his intent.

Secondly, the prosecution has evidence which establishes that the 17 temperature hiatus is not unheard of. Back in 13th February 2010 Mr Phil Jones –a fellow parishioner of Mr Pachauri -- in an interview with the BBC is quoted as saying –and this a direct quote:

BBC Interviewe: “ Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”

Phil Jones: “Yes, but only just…”
ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

The court requests it be read again for the benefit of Mr Steele who appeared to be preoccupied fiddling with something deep in his pocket.

“BBC Interviewer: “ Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”

Phil Jones: “Yes, but only just…”
ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

The court finds in favor of the prosecution and orders Mr Steele to pay full court costs – plus, the accommodation expenses of the prosecution team at a five star Goldcoast hotel –and for his own benefit, the court orders Mr Steele undergo pocket billiards aversion therapy.

Yes m'lord, it would appear that the defense is perhaps set on attempting an insanity plea.

No m'lord, it is not amusing.

Sorry m'lord but I am having a slight difficulty in keeping a straight face but I assure you I am perfectly happy to continue.

It would appear after sifting through the grandstanding and delusional ranting that the defense witnesses have conceded that the remarks they attributed to Mr Pachauri are instead assumed 'intent' rather than direct quotations.

Indeed m'lord, one does hope they understand the gravity of their actions and how this must inevitably reflect poorly on the rest of their case.

Yes m'lord I also feel the court deserves an apology before we proceed any further and I give them the floor.

csteele,

As a prosecutor you are making a right prat of yourself, don’t give up your day job.

All OLO’ers have access to these quotes, should you wish to challenge these quotes you need to go back to the original authors and take the matter up with them.

The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4),

The RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years (h/t to Werner Brozek for determining these values).

Phil Jones, EAU/CRU states under oath during UK parliamentary hearings 2010 states “There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995”

IPCC’s climate “science” panel has admitted there has been no global warming for 17 years,

London Met Office admits no warming for 17 years

James Hansen, NASA’s GISS is in agreement Hadley Centre/CRU findings.

We all understand that these sources are the very sources that once had us convinced of Catastrophic Anthopological Global Warming that was inducing Climate Change and threatening all biological life forms. It doesn’t matter how long the pause in warming was. What is important is that during the period when there was actually no warming, we were told there was, this was an intentional self serving lie perpetrated to save face, as a direct result it has cost western democracies billions of dollars in unnecessary costs inflicted on working people.

They got it wrong, many suspected it was wrong and now we all know it was wrong because they have admitted it. For this they should, and may yet end up in gaol. One thing is for absolute certain; their careers are finished and rightly so.

On a legal note, when all of the above have admitted their guilt, there is no requirement for a prosecutor, guilty as admitted in submission to the DPP.

P.S. It is clear that you are very distressed that your own side has abandoned you. To which many might respond, tough, you should have been a bit smarter in the first place like skeptics.

Ha, ha, SPQR...this IS fun!

Since I've been removed from the courtroom - but have fortuitously found an open window into which I can quietly whisper, "Psst".

Psst...SPQR...how come I'm barred from bouncing Monckton's credibility around a bit, yet you get to raise the subject of Monbiot and Plimer? - or for that matter Mr Ahmadinejad?

Shouldn't you be starting yer own thread(s) too?

There's no point trying to argue the evidence with Poirot since she's already agreed that there is actually no evidence ever that will cause her to doubt her faith in the AGW story.

I used to think that there would come a time when the true believers would finally admit they were in error and this whole sorry tale could be left behind us with only historians left to ponder over how this mass hysteria came about. The current halt in temps had long been predicted and I figured the honest observers would reconsider their view.

But instead when there was a 10 yr halt we were told we'd need to have 13yrs before it was significant. Then when we had a 13yr halt, we were told it'd need to be 15yrs to be significant. Then when it was 15yrs we were told it'd need to be 17 yrs. Now we find that the spruikers and trough-feeders have decided to stop playing this game and instead to demand a 40 yrs halt to disprove their already disproven theories.
Its insane. It took ten years of warming for these scientists to go from a consensus that we were headed for an ice age to beleiving we are headed for a fiery future. A mere ten years to get the whole sorry saga going. But they now demand 40 years of unwarming to admit their error.

And the useful idiots nod their heads and go along with the priesthood.

So we are going to have to just wait for a new generation to come through whose careers and wealth are not wedded to the failed theory before we see sanity return. People in a centruy or so are gunna shake their heads in wonder at this, the same way as we struggle to understand the mass hysteria that was the tulipomania.

mhaze,

Where did I agree - link please?

More of the same...."skeptics" just say stuff, most of which has little relation to actuality. As in, for instance, "I'm a member of the House of Lords" or "I've been 'appointed' an expert IPCC reviewer".

Second nature, don'tchaknow :)

I see we're still overlooking the part which goes "...plateaued at record levels...." As in each plateau is higher than the one before.

Going up?

Lastly, I can't let the opportunity slip by to give mhaze this page's RJ (religious jargon) award for his timely insertion of the word "priesthood" in his last post.....congrats and all that.

Poirot, csteele, qanda, wobbles and warmair,

Any reasonable person might ask the question “what do you want?” I honestly cannot answer this question?

What do you want OLOers to say or do? You seem to be the hard core remnants of the once mighty. You accused others of being deniers, flat earthers, loonies, mentally ill and a danger to society in general.

Now you have all placed yourselves in the firing line for the very same criticisms you so regularly dished out to others.

You refute the reality of what your own acolytes are now offering, you duck, weave, obfuscate and deny. You have no science left because those that gave it to you have recanted.

I know nothing of your personal circumstances but what I can say is that for those of us who have families, children and grandchildren, we all know the meaning of compromise. Having families means that as circumstances change, as society changes and as social circumstances change, we also have to change. If we don’t change we become isolated from that new reality.

You are all faced with a new reality, not a comfortable reality because to move with it you must also move. If you cannot or will not move you are all destined to be consigned to the historical rubbish bin.

It is sad that having been sold on a concept, an ideology, a set of attitudes, values and beliefs, you are, for whatever reason, unable to move as circumstances change.

As parents we all know that our kids demand branded shoes, tee shirts, iPhones and a host of other “contemporary” accoutrements. We don’t and can’t deny them because to do so compromises our acceptance of modern reality. Like spoilt children, you have enjoyed a disproportionate amount of exposure for your “wants”. This has left you all with the distorted view that your minority “wants” are greater than the collective good.

You are all like spoilt children and we don’t know what you want. Now, because you are so insecure, we don’t care.

Save your patronising blather, spindoc.

I don't come here to prove anything to deniers. I come here for the entertainment and to experience climate denialism in action.

Cognitive dissonance is rife on this forum, so it's educational if one is interested in the demonstration of denial.

"Dr Pachauri said global average temperatures ha plateaued at record levels and that the halt did not disprove global warming."

Explain how that is representative of Pachauri jumping ship?

Or this?:

"What is perceptible is, in the last 50 years, the trend is upwards...what you should be concerned about is the trend, and that is being influenced to a large extent by human actions."

Of course, you're happy to ignore the entirety of Pachauri's message to focus on the plateau...The 15 or 16 years blah, blah,blah has always been the skeptic's fave cherry-pick.....so nothing's changed.

So you can save your earnest narrative for someone who cares.

But keep up the good work.

To coin a phrase from The Psychiatrist - "There's enough material [here] for an entire conference."

(I know how much you like that stuff)

Thank you m'lord.

Yes I do understand your reasons for holding the two defendants in contempt. Their refusal to accept any responsibility or show any remorse for their actions in misleading the court would test the patience of any Judge.

If it pleases the court m'lord I would like to briefly cross examine the defense's chief witness.

Welcome back to the stand Mr Jones.

It was put to you that in 2010 you were asked in an interview with the BBC "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?". You attempted to answer the question starting with “Yes, but only just...” but then the defense rudely cut you off. Would you be so good as to repeat for the court the rest of the answer you gave?

Mr Jones - “I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”

Thank you Mr Jones. My understanding is that your calculations showed a 93% confidence level rather than 95% therefore instead of a 1 in 20 chance that the figures did not show a warming trend it was 1 in 14. I also understand that you did the calculations one year later, again from 1995 but with an extra 12 months worth of data and you found the statistical significance had once again climbed back over the 95% threshold. If it pleases the court could you explain why that was be the case.

Cont..

Cont..

Mr Jones - “"Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.”

"It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510

Thank you Mr Jones. So it would seem the evidence the defendants are using to substantiate their case is woefully out of date?

M'lord, I really must object to the screeching interjections from the accused. Let us deem the answer self evident then and thank the witness for his candour.

What's that m'lord? The defense now wants to deem Mr Jones a hostile witness? I have no objections m'lord.

No m'lord I'm not laughing. Would you like to borrow my kerchief to dry that eye m'lord? Please keep it m'lord, it is a gift.

Some will ignore it,some will not believe it, but climate change may well play a roll in this election.
That roll may only be the removal of Abbott, replaced by Turnbull.
Turnbull, for the very reason Liberals who do not believe out number in the house those who do.
But as the extreme weather Some tell us, we and the world are not having, swings more minds.
Liberals, even those who remain convinced the earth is flat, and climate change is a leftist invention, may just swing back.
To reality, another cyclone building and floods, water spouts , just maybe we, one day, will take politics out of science.

Mr Steele the court will indulge your fantasies one more time.

The prosecution calls Mr Phil Jones to the stand.

Mr Jones when the BBC reporter asked
<< Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”>>

Did you or did you not answer - Yes?

I answered yes, but only just.

It doesn’t not matter as to what margin -- you affirmed it was so—did you not?
Yes, I did.

Just so there is no misunderstanding – on the figures before you there was no trend—is that correct?
That is correct.

And can you tell the court why a lack of a trend was significant?
Well, because the AGW theorists had up till that time based their case heavily on year to year increase in temperatures. Without a strong upward trend it would be next to impossible to sell the theory to the public.

That is all Mr Jones you may step down now.

The prosecution now calls as its second witness, Mr Steele (a bewildered Steele sheepishly makes his way to the stand)

Mr Steele, in your examination of Mr Jones –or I should more rightly say, in your attempt to LEAD HIS WITNESS -- you made much of the need to take a LONG TERM perspective. Let us read a transcript to remind the court:
<<It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis.>>
Do you believe that a long term perspective is important in climate issues?
Y-Yes.

So, then, Mr Steele, why was it that at the first sign of a few hot days last summer you were seen to spruik them (on OLO) as proof positive of AGW –a few warm days!- –where was your long term perspective?
W-W-Well I I I thought it might…um..ahhh

Let me propose another reason or motivation for you. I have here , your honor, a document from the La Mancha Windmill corporation.

This document details that through a special concession negotiated through the IPCC and the Australian Climate Commission the La Mancha Windmill corporation has exclusive option to build 200,000 windmills in the heart of our metropolitan cities. Most of them will be situated in quiet suburban areas and will operate 24/7

And here on page 2, it shows that the major shareholder in this company is no other that Mr Steele.

I put it to you Mr Steele, your commitment to AGW has little or nothing to do with science and much to do with your pecuniary interests.

Thank you, Mr Steele, you may back down, sorry, step down now.

SPQR,

"...up till that time they based their case heavily on year to year increase in temperatures..."

(cough!)

Ask Phil about the "long-term" trend.

Oh - no need, he's already answered the question.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Poirot et al,

In leaping to the defence of those scientists and institutions who promoted CAGW you have once again side stepped the issue and have refused to address it.

What I said was this and only this. That during the period of the last 17, 18, 19, or 23 years (take your pick), each of these scientific establishments have now told us that “during that period” there was no global warming.

The issue remains that during this very same period we were told there was global warming. That was a lie because they have now admitted it.

All you have to do is tell us for that period, which was true. Was the world warming during that period or was it not?

Are you going to tell us which is true?

No doubt you will try to make the case that both are true by some mystical formula that exonerates all parties.

Your flawed historical models and future trend “scientific predictions” used to mitigate what has been made public are nothing to do with what has been said, they are a process called reverse engineering to make both “sound true”.

You need to understand that once the public are sensitized to the confusions you introduce there is no possibility of reversing it. It is the refusal and obfuscation of your lobby that is directly responsible for the collapse of any global response to the fictitious global problem.

Kyoto gone, renewable industry gone, emissions trading gone, public interest gone and political support and sponsorship gone.

You and your friends are to be congratulated; you have systematically dismantled the very thing you treasured. You have our eternal gratitude.

More of the same please.

P.S Don’t forget the question asked of you.

Poirot,

Here’s a better *LONG TERM* perspective –for yah!
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

And here’s another rather inconvenient finding:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

SPQR,

Well thanks for the guff from Randy Mann and Cliff Harris - you're determined to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

Perhaps you can supply some accurate data on Cliff's claim that he is a "climatologist" (we know Randy is just a weatherman)

A clue - http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/what-hell-is-long-range-weather.html

(Yer chart is just downright embarrassing)

And here's some info on solar:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Yes m'lord I agree that asking question of a witness then answering it ones self is a highly unusual tactic but then the defence certainly has shown a propensity to do just that.

I think you will find the appropriate term is 'verballing' m'lord.

Well m'lord rather than you finding them in contempt again shall we just agree that it is contemptible behaviour and move on? Thank you m'lord for your forbearance and yes pity is a sterling human virtue.

As to the court transcripts m'lord I think the fact that the replies were not in quotation marks will inform any future reader that Mr Jones never uttered those words and anyone with half a brain will realise that.

Which rules out deniers and The Australian Newspaper you say m'lord? Very droll m'lord, your words not mine of course.

If it pleases m'lord I would like to call the defendant Mr Spindoc to the stand. Yes m'lord hardly a name to inspire confidence but we play with the cards we are dealt.

Mr Spindoc you have stated before the court that “What I said was this and only this. That during the period of the last 17, 18, 19, or 23 years (take your pick), each of these scientific establishments have now told us that “during that period” there was no global warming.”

Yet you have provided no evidence. Could you please direct the court's attention to direct proof that any of the mentioned scientific bodies has said there was, in your words “no global warming” over the periods mentioned. Please make every effort to be accurate this time as I presume the judge's patience does have its limits, pity notwithstanding.

Well Poirot, its all very to whine about my treating your belief
system as a religion but I'm only striving for accuracy as is my want. If you refuse to even ponder the idea that your belief in the AGW story could be proven wrong, to even think about what types of new data or future scenarios may give you pause to rethink, then, I'm sorry, but you are treating it as a matter of faith, not science. I know my pointing out these simple things annoys you, but that only makes it more fun.

Piorot wrote:
""skeptics" just say stuff, most of which has little relation to actuality. As in, for instance, "I'm a member of the House of Lords" or "I've been 'appointed' an expert IPCC reviewer"."

Yep, I know what you mean. One of the things that really annoys me is the way he claims to be a nobel laureate, when even the nobel committee says otherwise....oh wait that might have been someone else: http://www.examiner.com/article/professor-mann-claims-to-win-nobel-prize-nobel-committee-says-he-has-not

But its ok to lie, hide the decline, subvert the peer review process, subvert the FOI process etc etc when you are working in the name of the one true faith, eh Poirot.

mhaze,

So Mann was saying this:

http://climatedepot.com/a/18179/Update-Climate-Depot-corrects-Nobel-Committee-on-One-Point-The-Committee-as-reported-by-Examiner-incorrectly-claimed-Michael-Mann-had-added-text-to-his-UN-IPCC-issued-Nobel-certificate

That he got one of these (example certificate)

http://evanmills.lbl.gov/nobel/nobel-certificate.pdf

And all the deniers blew it up into something sinister -

Surprise, surprise!

Next.....

Is this the script of a new film, Twelve Angry Strawmen?

Or perhaps Runaway Global Warming Jury...

r the flatearhers still insisting it will never rain again on the east coast?

Poirot,

Mann, on three occasions, claimed to have won the Nobel Prize. You really have no regard for the facts, do you?

"And all the deniers blew it up into something sinister"..

Well no, some people chose to use it to poke fun at the self-important git. Indeed the only way one can approach Mann and his discredited graph is to laugh it him. Oh and laugh at those who fell for his fabrication.

mhaze,

Show me evidence of the three occasions where Mann "claimed to be the "winner" - as opposed to "contributing" to a Nobel prize"?

Where does he claim to be Nobel laureate?

Links please.

...........

runner - I don't even know why you bother inserting your ignorance. It serves no practical purpose, either for yourself or others on this subject.

mhaze,

More on the issue,

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=441602745895933&set=a.221233134599563.54502.221222081267335&type=1&relevant_count=1

@ cSteele,

<<yada yada yada ... and anyone with half a brain will realise that>>

But anyone with a FULL brain would have seen/read it my way!

Poirot,

You are determined to defend one of your high-priests to the end I see.

If you check the text of his lawsuit against Steyn you'll see within it he three times mentions the Nobel winner status. Or this from his press release announcing the lawsuit:

"Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming."

I know you'll want to play with words to claim that black is white but if you go to the Nobel website you won't see Mann listed as a winner. If we go by the twisted logic that being a member of a winning organisation makes you a winner then every EU citizen is a Nobel recipient after the EU won the prize last year :)

Oh and by the way, has anyone told you that temps haven't risen for the last two decades or are you determined to ignore unsavoury facts.

Well hello there CSTEELE...

I see you've assumed the mantle of learned silk in this thoroughly monotonous topic, CSTEELE - having savoured yet another modicum of fine Sherry perhaps ? I've been awaiting your return with patience, where once more we can amuse ourselves by again discussing the many exemplars of unabashed media partisanship, as evidenced by their continued blathering about unfounded climate change ?

Being just your basic, pragmatic sort of fellow myself, the only 'change' I'd bet on CSTEELE, is that of government in about seven months time ? Provided it receives assent from our august Parliamentry Press Gallery, of course ?

Seriously though, it's good to see you back ol' man. On another related matter, it's interesting to see they've (journalists) closed 'out' one of their own ? An alleged 'Red Neck' journalist by the name of Andrew BOLT, a hitherto naysayer, 'climate change' denier ? Who apparently, had a Current Affairs programme on Ch.10 on Sunday mornings in 2012 ? How the mighty have fallen, by all acounts Mr Bolt had a huge following ? There's no accounting for the tastes of these 'Red Necks' Emmmm ?

Poirot, csteele, qanda, wobbles and warmair,

Lots of links to someone else’s opinion but still no answers?

<<The question was, and still is, that during the period of the last 17, 18, 19, or 23 years (take your pick), each of these scientific establishments have now told us that “during that period” there was no global warming.

The issue remains that during this very same period we were told there was global warming. That was a lie because they have now admitted it.>>

All you have to do is tell us for that period, which was true. Was the world warming during that period or was it not?

csteele has gone into deep denial and refuses to even accept the public statements. He/she/it wants the links to the evidence? Just how lazy can you get?

csteele, the “yes but” response has no legal precedent, unfortunately for you the answer in a court of law is yes or no. No “buts”.

Ah well, I guess we never really expected any answer. OLOers must be starting to wonder what sorts of intellects are driving your absent argument.

So which statements were true, is the world warming or is it not? Do we believe those who told us it was warming or do we believe those who now tell us it isn’t. Or are we all screwed up because the same people gave us both answers

mhaze,

Looking at the complaint wherein Mann is represented:

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/michael-mann-complaint.pdf

Paragraph 1. states:

"Dr Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. Along with other researchers, he was one of the first to document the steady rise in the surface temperatures during the 20th Century and the steep increase in measured temperatures since the 1950's. As a result of his research, Dr Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize....."

Paragraph 2 states:

"It is one thing to engage in discussion about debatable topics. It is quite another to attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel Prize recipient...."

Paragraph 17 states:

"The work of Dr Mann and the IPCC has received considerable accolades within the scientific community. In 2007, Dr Mann shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the other IPCC authors for their work on climate change..."

Thus his description as being a "Nobel Prize recipient" is sailing close to the semantic wind.

However, the other two statements reference his colleagues and the Nobel accolade as being a shared or collective distinction - and nowhere does he claim to be a Nobel Laureate".

In your first post on this issue, mhaze, you said that Mann claims to be a "Nobel Laureate". Taking you at your word, I expected to discover that Mann had actually referred to himself as such.
What do I find instead? That while defending his reputation against ongoing defamation, he refers to his significant participation in the work that led to his organisation receiving the Nobel Peace Prize - for which he was recognised as a major contributor.

He could be excused, under the circumstances, for feeling that he and his colleagues, who make up the IPCC, are the recipients of the accolade - even if only under the organisational umbrella..

He did not claim to be a "Nobel Laureate" as you claim he did.

See how easy it is to be taken at your word - even if you meant it to be a tad nebulous?

If it pleases the court m'lord I would like to ask the defendant what he thinks his brain is 'full' of to be seeing direct quotations where there are none.

Sorry m'lord I didn't quite catch your last remark, I thought from this distance there may have been a bovine reference but I am unsure.

Yes m'lord I will move right along. Forgive me.

Well actually m'lord I will admit to finding myself a little perplexed as to how exactly to proceed. One defendant has obviously taken a vow of silence, yes m'lord small blessings indeed, and the other has his thumb in his mouth, rocking back and forth mumbling yada yada yada while clutching to his breast notes of some kind.

I am a little loathed m'lord to approach him too closely m'lord but the papers appear to be the transcripts of Mr Jones' first interview with the BBC. Yes m'lord one must assume they are very precious to him.

Oh yes perfectly appropriate m'lord, delusions should be allowed to remain while they are important to the recovery process and he should be allowed to keep the papers until he feel strong enough to part with them.

Indeed m'lord, a very long time indeed up to 17 years in some cases I believe, but with the appropriate professional help perhaps a more speedy recovery might be hoped for.

Yes m'lord I think the officers have all of his things, oops wait, nearly forgot his bat and ball. There we go.

I fully concur m'lord, guilty as sin as you said but judgement should indeed be reserved until the proper assessments have been done.

Thank you m'lord.

Out of town, phone access only.
Spin doctor, a puerile and naive thread.
Will give you benefit of doubt.
Back in a few days.

Qanta : out of town,out of touch --what's new!

mhaze,

Just spotted this in my travels....

This "Nobel Laureate" thing seems to be catching.

http://www.readfearn.com/2011/07/monckton-not-in-control-of-his-own-biography/

Poirot, csteele, qanda, wobbles and warmair,

It’s interesting that for so long you have subjected us to the incessant CAGW teachings and the high esteem in which you hold your teachers.

Now you are forced to defend them?

qanda says the thread itself is “puerile and naïve”. csteele is off with the fairies as he does his “Rumpold of the Bailey” routine, denies all the statements from his own team and tries to put the “messengers” in the dock. Odd that, shouldn’t is be those who conned us in the dock?

Poirot finds a much needed distraction in more links to irrelevancy in defence of Michael Mann, a person who ranks up there with Al Gore as one of the greatest CAGW fraudsters.

Meanwhile all this furious activity has not given us the answer?

The public statements are as follows;

The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4),

The RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years (h/t to Werner Brozek for determining these values).

Phil Jones, EAU/CRU states under oath during UK parliamentary hearings 2010 states “There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995”

IPCC’s climate “science” panel has admitted there has been no global warming for 17 years,

London Met Office admits no warming for 17 years

James Hansen, NASA’s GISS is in agreement Hadley Centre/CRU findings.

For each of the periods over the last 17, 18, 19, or 23 years (take your pick), all of these scientific establishments have now told us that “during these periods” there was no global warming. Yet there are thousands of warmertariat commentaries over these same periods telling us the world was still warming when clearly it was not.

So the question remains. Tell us for these periods, which was true? Was the world warming during these periods or was it not?

Nothing to do with the previous self evidently flawed temperature records and nothing to do with unfulfilled future trend “scientific predictions”. Just address the contradictions for the periods to which your own scientists refer.

spindoc,

I'll leave you to waffle away to yourself on the semantics....(we've been through all this before:)

.................

I thought this was interesting.

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/02/24/the-making-of-a-classic-climate-graph/#more-14096

Yes m'lord, I also thought the matter had been dealt with and the defendants either committed or keeping their counsel but it appears Mr Spindoc felt the need to renounce his vow of silence and add to his considerable record of verbal-ling.

No m'lord it appears some people never learn.

The arresting officer m'lord? Let me see, constable Oh Sung Wu m'lord of the NSW police force. Oh m'lord it is perhaps a little unfair to say they are experts in verbal-ling but I'm sure the good constable knows it when he sees it, however I can assure the court by all accounts this particular member of the force has an outstanding record.

Yes m'lord however it was after hours and there was no action taken, and who among us can say they haven't imbibed to excess on occasion.

If it pleases the court the prosecution calls Mr Spindoc to the stand.

Mr Spindoc, it is alleged and not denied by yourself, that on Tuesday, the 26th of February 2013 at 8:20:48 AM you wilfully and maliciously verbal-led one Mr Jones by claiming that he stated under oath during UK parliamentary hearings 2010 “There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995”.

I put it to you that Mr Jones never uttered the words “There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995” during the parliamentary inquiry. They are not to be found in the transcripts which can be found here;

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/38701.htm

Nor in the clip of the hearing which can be found here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_DVg0ZWzG4

I further put to you that your actions are those of a desperate man intent on putting words into the mouths of others to advance a discredited and unscientific stance of global warming.

Can you please explain to the court why you persist in this unsavoury practice?

csteele, Oh, you mean THAT Phil Jones.

“BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming? Phil Jones: Yes, but only just”.

“Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020. Prof. Phil Jones CRU” Climategate email.

“Jones has admitted publicly that there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years”.

“Lorne Gunter, in today’s Canadian ‘National Post’ makes a shrewd assessment of where the world’s climate science community stands today in the wake of Professor Phil Jones’s recent revelations that there has been no ‘statistically significant’ global warming for over 15 years”.

“Four global warming blips discussed by Jones proves the historic temperature record fails to support the lie that the planet faces catastrophic climate change. Since these damaging admissions from such a key alarmist climate scientist, we are now witnessing the death throes of what has been the paradigm of post-modern science”.

“Phil Jones is liable as lead conspirator in the UK’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and may face prosecution under the United Kingdom Fraud Act (2006). If convicted of the offense of fraud by either false representation, failing to disclose information or fraud by abuse of his position, he stands liable to a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment”.

“Disgraced Professor Phil Jones of Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and his boss, Professor Edward Acton, head of the University of East Anglia appear to have been exposed in a blatant attempt to pervert justice. The Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI) has released evidence that proves Jones lied to Parliament during his testimony last week on the Climategate scandal”.

“Professor Phil Jones, disgraced British Climategate scientist has been caught out making contradictory and false statements to the UK’s Parliamentary Select Committee”.

“CRU’s Phil Jones will step down from his position as director of the unit that cooked climate change data to hide global cooling.

Britain’s East Anglia University says Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review”.

Reliable scientist? Not. Career finished? Yes.

Poirot wrote: "and nowhere does he claim to be a Nobel Laureate."

People who are awarded the Nobel prize are nobel laureates. Claiming to have been awarded the prize is the equivalent of claiming to be a nobel laureate.

Your case is so weak that you are reduced to playing childish semantic games.

I think we can summarise this thread (or at least the warmist side of it) as follows:

Even though we can no longer deny that there's been no warming for the better part of two decades since one of the priest-hood has owned up to it, it doesn't matter in the slightest because Monckton isn't really a Lord.

Very persuasive.

spindoc,

In keeping with your title, never allow the facts to get in the way of a good denialist rant : )

Here is the report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP

You may like to peruse it at your leisure.

Under the heading "Conclusion" you'll find this:

"We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit..."

(Of course, "skeptics" aren't big on bothering about the actuality (or not) of "evidence" - and no doubt the International Panel are all part of the "conspiracy" anyway :)

mhaze,

Nothing has changed...you guys persist in your short-term cherry-pick as is your wont (and it's being extending by the day - Hoorah!).

And your pin-up boy Lord Monckton of Brenchley has trouble with actualities....not to mention a fairly slender grasp on climate science.

http://theconversation.edu.au/hear-ye-hear-ye-moncktons-medieval-warming-tale-is-climate-heresy-2326

(You're heading for the gold star on this thread. Barely a post goes by without you alluding to religious jargon...Good for you!)

csteele,

The issue of “where” Phil Jones recanted is settled and you are spot on. He recanted on the BBC and not as I stated “under oath during the UK’s parliamentary hearings” I apologize to you and to OLOers for this attribution error but his statement remains a matter of record.

To be fair he was never actually asked the question until he was interviewed by Roger Harrabin on the BBC. However, now that I have admitted my error can we get back to the original issue?

Professor Phil Jones has admitted that there has been no “statistically significant” global warming since 1995. He is supported in this assertion by a number of previously credible and significant “scientific” sources.

The “matter of fact” remains unchanged and we can now proceed to the deliberation of the statements of fact to reach our conclusions.

All those “experts’ that told us during the periods in question have now admitted they were wrong. They lied to the public and to our politicians.

This of course changes nothing in relation to the fraud perpetrated by these “experts”. I have admitted my error and apologized, are you man enough to accept my apology and to examine your own responses to the questions asked of you?

Poirot, your diversionary comments are noted, your scientific “champions vs the rest” is heading anywhere except to the questions asked.

The questions are about your scientific champions contradicting you. Can you now get down to answering the questions?

For each of the periods over the last 17, 18, 19, or 23 years (take your pick), all of these scientific establishments have now told us that “during these periods” there was no global warming. Yet there are thousands of warmertariat commentaries over these same periods telling us the world was still warming when clearly it was not.

Which is true, your experts now say there was no global warming during these periods. Is there global warming or is there no global warming during these periods?

New thread/script titles:

A Few Good Strawmen
Incident on a Small Blog Page

or how about,
Tequila Mockingblogger?

Good afternoon to you CSTEELE...

Gee that was a little unkind ol' boy ? On retirement a detective sergeant if you don't mind, but there again you narcissists do tend to be a little bereft of facts at times as well as being unacquainted with fidelity and veracity eh ?

What are you trying to do CSTEELE ? Pass yourself off to everyone, as a legally trained individual, I certainly hope not. It just might prove to be a perilous course of conduct for you to follow you know ?

As a dilettante, your feeble attempts of dramatizing the court sequence, is not at all disparate with that often engineered by a biased media ? With their many exaggerated accounts found within a ever diminishing broadsheet.

Though prima facie, your efforts hitherto though laudable, are a tad flawed, though to be expected with an injudicious thespian as your good self ?

Yeah, I know what you mean, o sung wu.

There are quite a few posters around here who dismiss the expertise of those who are trained and qualified in their various disciplines....why some even refer to the practice of taking guidance from climate scientists as "continued blathering about unfounded climate change".

I'm sure you'd agree, given your respect for "trained individuals" that it helps your case if you have partaken of instruction and have a modicum of expertise in your field.

Now that o sung wu is here, perhaps its an episode of Law and Disorder?

I reckon the detective should probably figure out who started the whole court thing before dressing down only one suspect.

Dear o sung wu,

I was not seeking 'laudable' rather striving for laughable. I also hope I have managed to reach the appropriate levels of pomposity.

Just for the record I have no exposure to the legal world and I have never been a prosecutor, however at some stage in your career I am quite positive you would have been a constable or shall we say a jaffa.

I do know m'lord is not even a term used any more in Australia.

It is all completely make believe.

As to what I am 'attempting to do', this is for light relief only. Both sides are pretty well entrenched and as you say global warming on OLO has become a “thoroughly monotonous topic” but it can be a lot of fun if a little effort is put in.

Just for the record though this is the second post where you have been swinging the big stick. SPQR and spindoc went hard at it from the beginning so probably deserve a little touching up but I am of the mind to give you the benefit of the doubt. I am never shy of receiving or giving a bit of a dig but as to whether this escalates, needlessly I would have thought, I leave in your court.

Now please excuse me, the horse hair awaits.

Good evening POIROT...

Good one, touche ! Got to give you that one.

I must say in all seriousness, I really don't know ? There is much credible scientific material out there in support of a changing climate ? With such a body of evidence, it would be quite hard to ignore it.

Conversely, it would now appear there are those who are considered equally as eminent, even venerable within the scientific community who are now refuting it. Who's right, I wouldn't have a clue ?

Yes m'lord contrition is a good sign, but forgive me, you seem unconvinced.

A good point m'lord, his original claim was “Phil Jones, EAU/CRU states under oath during UK parliamentary hearings 2010 states “There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995”" so he does indeed use the word 'states' twice in the one sentence. I had not picked that up. It would clearly speak to intent as you say.

One moment m'lord, I will retrieve it from the transcript. Ah here we are, Mr Spindoc during his apology says; “He recanted on the BBC and not as I stated “under oath during the UK’s parliamentary hearings” I apologize to you and to OLOers for this attribution error but his statement remains a matter of record.”

If you permit me a brief moment m'lord I will check the transcript of the BBC interview.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

You are perfectly correct m'lord, the statement claimed by the defendant to be there simply isn't. Well yes m'lord, obviously the position forwarded by the defendant that Mr Jones' “statement remains a matter of record” is of course false.

Perfectly understandable that you should be upset m'lord, if a defendant were to verbal someone whilst apologising for the very same crime in my court I would want to take some form of action. However I submit that the defendant may well be confused by the turn of events and I'm sure if given a chance will rectify the matter.

Would an apology for his very first transgression would also assist in tempering your mood m'lord?

Yes indeed m'lord, we can all live in hope.

o sung wu,

Here is a pie chart:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

Between 1 January, 1991 and 9 November, 2007 - 13,950 peer-reviewed articles on climate change - of those, 24 reject global warming.

(of course, the latest fad is to question the validity of peer-review, even though that system has delivered us sound science up till now)

<< There are quite a few posters around here who dismiss the expertise of those who are trained and qualified in their various disciplines....>>

And on that theme, we have fortuitously just received a leaked AGW believers training camp vid.

In it you will see four experts instilling in the new recruit the importance of respecting expert consensus. A skill which will stand him in good stead when he has to interpret *climate scientist* pronouncements like this:
BBC Interviewer: “ Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”
Phil Jones: “Yes, but only just…”

Anyway, here is that vid (the four experts are actually, CSteele, Poirot[in disguise with the beard] Qanda & Warmair)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iRh5qy09nNw

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm

Spin it guys....all you've got is spinnnnnnnn

Bugsy,

How about "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"?

Lord Monckton's gone off again.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/monckton-accuses-tony-press-uni-tasmania-of-fraud-and-deception/#more-27277

Word :)

Good afternoon to you POIROT...

Thank you for furnishing me with the 'Pie Chart' explanation.

Seems the scientific support for evidence of climate change is quite persuasive, for sure ? Emmmmm.

Sorry for my delay in getting back to you, this jolly computer of mine has a mind of it's own I'm afraid.

spindoctor, back on line.

Yes, puerile – as in your repeated immature and childish rants against known science … as in shutting your eyes, clasping your ears, and shouting at the top of your lungs … ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

You don’t want to hear the answers.
You don’t want to see the answers.
You just want to see and hear what you want to see and hear – regardless of the truth.

Yes, naïve – as in your simple-mindedness about time series statistical analysis, short term noise and longer term trends. Naïve – as in your incessant silly lies, deliberate distortions and perverted misrepresentations of what was and has been said.

Here's a plot of the most common data sets:

http://tinyurl.com/5-data-sets

And with a 12 month running average:

http://tinyurl.com/12month-running-mean

Even Roy Spencer's favourite shows the warming trend.

For what it’s worth (I’ll try and keep it simple):
We can measure energy coming in and going out of the Earth System.
If you add energy to a system, the system heats up – there’s an energy imbalance in the Earth System.
In trying to maintain equilibrium, the Earth System reacts (e.g. more extreme weather events) until a new equilibrium ('new normal') is reached.
Once this new equilibrium is reached, the long term warming trend will re-establish – my guess for GMSST, within a few more years.
Why? Because the GM temperature of the 1998 El Nino (hot) year is almost being matched by the later La Nina (cold) years.

This and more is explained in previous links by others (but you don’t like links, eh)

Barry Spinks, you are no different here as you were on 'Our Say' or 'Menzies House' – your head just can’t get around your socio-political or ideologue mindset.

Why do you people keep falling for this sleight-of-hand? This so-called survey of 13000+ papers is a dud. Its probably even worse than the failed survey that supposedly found 97% of scientists buying the CAGW story. But it does its job of convincing the perpetually gullible.

Here's what they did. First find 13000+ papers that mention the words "global warming" or similar. Then check which of those explicitly reject the theory. Now note, that the paper had to reject the theory outright. Even if the paper showed some reason to doubt the theory but didn't totally outright reject it, such a paper was treated as accepting the theory.

But here's the real kicker. If the paper wasn't really about AGW at all but was about say, "North American tree swallows laying their eggs about nine days earlier than they did 40 years ago due to global warming", these papers were treated as supporting the theory.

If a paper explores the effects of the already agreed 1 deg C increase in the past 150yrs or researches the potential effects of a further 1 deg C increase in the next 100yrs, such a paper, in this study(for want of a more descriptive word) assumes that the authors whole-heartedly accept the entire premise of the theory. But in those cases no such inference can be drawn. Effectively these authors are writing about the consequences of a warming rather than endorsing the theory behind the warming.

Had a unscrupulous sceptic (if such a thing existed - grin) done this study, they could have just as easily prepared a chart showing the percentage of papers out of the 13000+ that explicitly endorsed the AGW theory and we would have ended up with one that looked pretty much the same. Sceptics could have then run around like Poirot asserting that most papers DON'T explicitly endorse the theory.

But that would be beyond the pale and therefore no sceptic would do it.

Although I recognose that your comments were tongue in cheek mhaze, I reckon if that were actually the case, it would have been done.

God knows, they've tried everything else.

A closer look at The Australian's report:

http://skepticalscience.com/australian-pachauri-global-warming.html

The Australian published a rare "correction" to a Graham Lloyd story recently on the "Sea rise not linked to warming" story.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/17/the-australian-corrects-the-record-on-climate-change/

Form?

Dear Poirot,

Great links.

Kind of gives a new light to SPQR's statement “that the reporter who recorded the remarks , is a professional reputable person with many years experience and no reason to fabricate things”.

And this is their front line ammunition? Beggars belief.

Dear warmers,

Now that you’ve had time to give us all the benefit of your “yes buts”, perhaps you could turn your attention to all the others who have now stated that there has been no statistically significant global warming for 17,18, 19 or 23 years.

We’ve heard the “yes but” if we include the years it was actually warming and extend this over the period when it was not warming, it’s still warming mantra.

Not the point of course as we are asking if there has been warming “during this period” when we are now told there was no warming?

It’s a bit like saying my car has not moved forward for 17 years, ah but if you include the years when it did 10,000 kms per year it has still moved. What post-modernist, deconstructed socialized tosh!

The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4),

The RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years (h/t to Werner Brozek for determining these values).

IPCC’s climate “science” panel has admitted there has been no global warming for 17 years,

London Met Office admits no warming for 17 years

James Hansen, NASA’s GISS is in agreement Hadley Centre/CRU findings.

No wise monkey is spinner, just more regurgitated doo-doo.

qanda and Co,

Yes we hear your plaintiff cries however, you will do anything to avoid the questions.

We understand it is all about avoiding answering, we know you cannot answer and we know why not. You are full of anything and everything except explaining your contradictions.

These are such simple questions but they cause you so much pain.

We knew before they were asked that you were unable to answer them because to answer them would destroy your illusions.

With such simple questions we know you have all gone into denial, “they never said it, it isn’t true, they are being misrepresented, you don’t understand, it’s not that simple, you don’t understand the science, yes but, if we take into account the blahdy, blahdy, blahdy it would all come out as planned”.

Sorry, no it won’t. Unless you can explain your side of the story and can explain why your team has reneged on what it was you once believed in, we will have to conclude, in the absence of any explanation, that you are ducking the scrambled egg heading your way.

We have been too finely tuned by Gillard to accept your lame “damp lettuce leaf” excuses. You can’t hack it, you don’t want to and you dearly want this to all go away so that you can save face. Tough titties mate, your in the poo of your own incompetence and I for one will keep you swimming around in it.

Your science is not only wrong, it is infantile.

I know you will pick on all the words that offend your emotions. You will avoid the questions like the plague. The nice thing about emotive argument is that no cognitive skill are required, just the exchange a few links between like minded warmers to keep you cool.

Your time is up and all that the future holds for you is the ridicule you once dished out to others. Keep up the good work its working fine, for us that is.

Looking forward to your next “one liner” pointing to yet another Unicorn.

Sorry, spindoc,

Your infantile questions and huffing and puffing mean nothing...nothing at all.

With "skeptics" like this: http://www.readfearn.com/2013/02/climate-change-new-world-order-malcolm-roberts-ben-cubby/ decking the halls of denialsim, there's really nothing to add.

Here's a quote from Readfearn's article:

"Ten prominent scientists also get a copy of Robert's report, with the faintly narcissistic demand that if they fail to prove that human-caused climate change exists to his satisfaction, then by Friday March 1st, 2013 I will assume you do not disagree with my report."

This is really nutty stuff - and (CSIR)Oh! times up! - it's the fateful 1st of March......gee-willikers!...what'llwedonow!

As Baldrick would say - "Stupidy, stupidy, stupidy."

(I know how much you like that stuff:)

Poirot,

Was it not Malcolm Roberts that spindoc 'elevated' to a professor?

Can you twitch the whiskers and dig it up from spinner's OLO history - may shed some light on where he's coming from.

.

spindoc,

Not avoiding the questions at all - they've been answered. But carry on ... close your eyes, block your ears and chant "I can't hear you".

qanda,

How about this for starters?:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11810&page=0#202362

Dear spindoc,

You wrote;

Quote..

The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4), 

The RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years (h/t to Werner Brozek for determining these values).

IPCC’s climate “science” panel has admitted there has been no global warming for 17 years, 

London Met Office admits no warming for 17 years

James Hansen, NASA’s GISS is in agreement Hadley Centre/CRU findings.

End Quote.

Wait, first there were 6 (see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5643#156598 ) and now there are 5. What the hell happened? Who got the boot? Ah I see, poor old Phil Jones seems to be missing.

I feel like an instructor on the Biggest Loser.

Right where do you want to lose some weight now? Your choice, just pick one, any one and we will go to work together. Just remember there is a rather cranky judge looking over your shoulder.

Oh by the way I think the dodgy air-con repair man who thinks he has finally got the cooling happening needs to be called back. In fact I would be demanding a refund if I were you.

Australia breaks hottest summer record - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-01/australia-experiences-hottest-summer-on-record/4547746

“The Bureau of Meteorology has confirmed that Australia has just experienced its hottest summer on record.”

In fact Dr Karl Braganza says “the last six months have been the hottest on record from September to February.”

Dr Trewin has added; “"If we look at previous very hot summers in Australia before this year, six of the eight hottest summers on record had occurred during El Nino years.”

"So the fact that we've got such a hot summer without having an El Nino makes it in some ways even more exceptional."

Poirot, I'm shocked!

Csteele, spindoc says he doesn't "do science".

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11810#202362

Interesting thread ... same old spin from Mr Barry Spinks, and "Professor Malcolm Roberts".

qanda,

Lord Monckton of Brenchley narrates the latest installment of his daring exploits in the service of denial.

Over at Jo's, they're all sitting cross-legged on the mat, while the Lord regales them with tales of derring-do.

I don't think it would be possible to invent a character as farcical as he is.

In that sense, he's a gift....

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/monckton-explains-why-taking-climate-extremists-to-court-works-and-uni-tas-agrees-to-investigate

Well someone had to do it an it was probably csteele's turn..."Australia breaks hottest summer record".

Yes it was the hottest summer according to the BOM's adjusted data set. Of coarse, in the unadjusted data set 2012 was a whole .04 deg C hotter than 1910...how we will survive that! But let's not get into the whole adjusted data v raw data issue...that's a whole other topic.

Some other highlights from 2012:

*in terms of annual avg 2012 not even in the top 30 years since 1910.
*Autumn 2012 third coldest in 50yrs. (2011 coldest in 60 yrs)
*Winter coldest since 1989.
*Spring only 4th warmest this century.

And so on.

Out of dozens and dozens of different data elements the BOM finds one that tells the approved story and the perpetually gullible buy it.

Spin over substance yet again.

warmist blinded by dogma. What a laugh! Just following their evolutionary tactics of manipulation and mis interpretation of fact. Oh well it makes them feel superior to those who can observe and question.

Dear mhaze,

It is only when you bend over and start plucking out these sort of figures that one can really get a handle of how big it must be up there.

Jeez mate if you weren't so full of it there would be an echo.

Let us examine just one.

You claim;

“Spring only 4th warmest this century ”

The BOM states;

“Spring maximum temperatures across Australia were mostly warmer than normal. Averaged across the nation, maximum temperatures were 1.73 °C above normal, the second-warmest spring in 63 years. Both the NT and SA measured their warmest spring maximum temperature on record, with anomalies of +1.60 °C and +2.69 °C, respectively. All States ranked in their respective top ten warmest springs, with both WA and Tasmania experiencing their second-warmest spring, NSW its fifth, Queensland sixth, and Victoria equal-eighth.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/aus/archive/201211.summary.shtml

Do you have any shame?

csteele,

I was talking about average temperatures and so you seek to disprove what I say by linking to an article that talks about anything other than average temps.

huh?

A lack of comprehension combined with innumeracy ain't a pretty sight.