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".