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.