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?