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.