Quite right. Prince Philip is a baby eating reptile and Pricess Diana was murdered by MI5. The banking crisis is a Jewish conspiracy to bring about world communism and David Icke is Gods appointed representative on Earth.

I wonder why you don't read that in the mainstream media?

So the email scandal is brushed aside just like that?
I think a few smirky comments about tinfoil hats and reptilian monarchy doesn't quite work for me and millions of others.
That sort of approach only increases the suspicion things are being glossed over.

And Gandalf, you can threaten, patronise and bully as you like but you won't stop me posting here.

Please don't play the victim four.

I'm well aware of what has been said here recently. Do I have to quote back to you some of your language and tone?

You, as a fellow farmer, should know you reap what you sow - and boy have you been tilling...

Sometimes you make very odd comments.

There are some odd links posted here from time to time but infowars really is the home of tinfoil hattery!

Solar Cycles wrote:

The source is irrelevant, the content is sound. The only ones needing a tinfoil hat, are those with their ideological agendas nailed to the mast! Oh I forgot I need to put a 

Gandalf The White wrote:

The source is irrelevant.  The language chosen displays a clear lack of respect and/or a clear sceptic agenda.  Sorry, but if someone has to resort to unnecessary rudeness then I am not interested.

Completely unnecessary and exactly why sceptics lose any moral high ground.

Solar Cycles wrote:

Sorry Gandalf but I take exception to lurid remarks when anything is posted which questions  "alleged" unethical behaviour. Tinfoil hats brings what to the debate exactly? 

Ulric wrote:

Hi SC,

If you look back you will find that that wasn't my expression.

I stand by my comments.  Again, if you look back you will find that all that I do is to highlight when something comes from a sceptic website or blog.  I don't make rude comments except in response to others.

If someone has a valid point to make it should be possible to make it without ironic, sarcastic or disrespectful comments.  You don't get those in scientific papers so why do they need to appear in sceptic 'analysis'? 

As you know, because you and I have been able to exchange views in a civilised manner, I am perfectly happy to exchange views on whatever level the other person wishes to set. 

If someone throws a tinfoil hat into the ring and I say,"Oh look, a tinfoil hat!", that isn't a political position. It is merely an observation that a tinfoil hat has entered the ring and I am consequently expressing a sceptical position on tinfoil hats.

In the meantime climate is still altering and , from the data I've seen ,looks set to continue changing for a good while yet. If that change has an element of AGW to it then those changes will continue to amass and impact for over 1,000yrs at least even if we stopped producing atmosphere altering pollutants. As such we have time to settle the debate and prove those folk who are wrong to be just that , plain wrong.

Name calling will not change the science nor will raking up matters resolved by three separate enquiries that found "no wrongdoing" but a lot of naivety......does that foil hat come in my size.....the lack of solar wind is exposing my brain to dangerous levels of cosmic influence.......

Worth emphasising - and it applies to everyone.

Hi - I've just done cleared out the PM box.

Still don't understand the comment?  You seem to have two different standards to apply according to the poster?  That's not a reasonable stance.

As Gray-Wolf has said, the planet continues to warm.  We have had an exceptionally quiet sun for over a year now and a strong (exceptional, according to Robertski) La Nina for several months.  Something is going on and its not a hoax...

No,its the greatest hoax ever, the threat of man made co2 to man is non existant, it is just an economic and politcal scam. Yes Co2 is anthrogenic but the feedbacks are nothing like as serious a the alarmist try to make out. if the Northern hemisphere shiver this winter yet again, the already doomed hoax, will be even further down peoples agendas. 

'greatest hoax ever',  'scam', 'alarmists'. Humm, ever is a long time.

But, I agree, it's clearly a hard sell to try and convince people the globe warms while, locally, it cools or neither warms or cools. Otoh, it's going to be a harder sell for you if the globe continues to warm and you, give it time, still bang on about 'the greatest hoax ever' - if AGW pans out as projected you are the one facing the charges you level above.

Yeah, well the Northern Hemisphere is clearly in on the scam

Now a pedant might wish to pull you up on your "30yrs of PDO-ve" seeing as it was positive for most of the period and is now struggling (since98'?) to turn negative .Even though NASA called it a few years back the figures are still not all that convincing with seemingly an even spread of neg and pos figures across the period. Strangely is you -1 from all the figures you get a convincing pdo-ve since 98'..............

SC, sometimes this debate is akin to trying to nail jelly to the ceiling....

So, you want me to believe that an average El Nino event was responsible for one of the warmest northern hemisphere winters on record? 

Or alternatively you want me to believe that somehow the heat of the cumulative excess of El Ninos over La Ninas since 1976 has somehow been retained somewhere in the system?  The latter would be surprising, considering that the sceptics keep flagging that the "missing heat of AGW" cannot be explained - in which case where is this latent effect please?

Here's the ENSO graph, for ease of reference:

http://www.oarval.org/MAI_1950-2010-Nov4-2010-ts.gif

If you have a mechanism that explains this, and which Tom and the other experts agree is sound, then I will very willingly accept that something needs revising in the AGW modelling.

That's what I like about your posts Robertski.  A well structured and reasoned argument, supported by data.  Or not.

Good work.

You make some good points here Gandalf and I've been waiting to see what replies you get!

In the meantime I'll ask what may well be a dumb question -  looking at the ENSO graph you posted it's clear that since about 1975 there has been far more Nino's than Nina's and that they peaked in intensity between the early eighties and 2000. Since then it has been fairly even. So, I'm sat here thinking doesn't this match the increase and subsequent leveling off of global temps?

I'm probably missing something obvious here.

Hi NS,

I think the answers may be in other threads.  In essence we are being told to believe that this heat was taken into the THC.  It doesn't fit the facts but that's the answer I got.   There's not enough heat in the surface waters and it's not been there long enough to explain the scale of warming but Stephen and Polarwind maintain that this mythical heat has been slowly escaping from the 'system' since 2003 and has now virtually ended, hence the cooling (coupled with quiet sun).

I think it's in the 'colder winters' thread.

Anyhow, Stephen has predicted that 2011 will be noticeably cooler than 2010.  For him to be correct we will need to see a trend back down to 1961-90 levels quite quickly....

Watch this space....

Thanks for the reply Gandalf. I must admit though, this missing heat thing is rather confusing: I mean who's looking for it the sceptics, the warmists, either, niether? My tiny brain is struggling to cope...