I didn’t even know it worked. I guess that explains the lack of warming. Thanks for clearing that up.

Some one on here once claimed that people flying first class should pay the same for co2 as cattle class Poor sod could not work out why if you used more plane you should pay more. remember?

Do I have to pay the same as attendees to climate conferences? They have a much bigger carbon footprint than me, surely I should get a discount.

Who knows just maybe all those universality and scientist and all the research is bogus and the proprietors of the denial net works really are the best place to get science from. Maybe it is a war against the Global left wing consprwhacy the scientist are in cohorts with the left wing and the one world government With the next respected scientist you target for your smear campaign just more collateral damage.

Sounds like some of you are having fantasy sessions from some Joe 90 left wing TV propaganda you watched as kids
Did you all do acid ?

Learn critical thinking

Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012 http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/category/met-office-in-the-media/
The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.
As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/content_root/CC%20SkepticsvRealists_500.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails

You go to web sites that have the stolen climate emails and claim that they prove that scientist commit fraud
The stolen emails were released timed to overshadow the Copenhagen conference by the denial echo chamber. considerable effort was made to quote out of context snippets of exchanges to make out the scientist were dishonest
the accusations of the denial blogs prompted nine reviews of the affair from a range of body’s University’s ,government departments and science society’s. Not one of these reviews found that the scientist had been dishonest.

Then there was heartlands documents fraudulently obtained by a pro science blogger.
I published them on this blog as they were released The CEO of heartland made a claim that only one of the documents was false. Right now despite belonging to a group demanding 9 reviews of the scientist was positive that the COE was telling the truth From the start

my “True or not who cares” Has been taken out of context by right now. It was a dig at his pathetic gullibility in believing in climate denial blog sites with out question.

Again we have someone displaying poor critical thinking skills. After nine reviews he can not accept the truth that the scientist are not telling lies. After one statement he is ready to accept a CEO is telling the truth.

“Only a real dipshit repeats stories that they know are false

I’ll vote for the wizened little prick if it’s true!

“There was warming But I can play with statistics ”

In case anyone doesn’t know, in order to try to “win” his argument Griff is reduced to asserting here that the concept of statistical significance is completely meaningless.

If you’re thinking that that is the stupidest thing you’ve ever heard or read on the Internet you’d be right.

Such is the alarmist case.

Get back to us when they cover the topic as school, eh Griff?

Meantime, if anyone here thinks that pharmaceutical companies should bother themselves about such non-issues as statistical significance when it comes to evaluating the effects of their products on humans, Griff has a bone to pick with you. It’s just “playing with statistics” you see.

Time you young whippersnappers paid your dues!