global temperatures, page-51

I think we all agree that the chart is, scientifically speaking, garbage.

The IPCC has been criticised for making one very small error over the date when glaciers in the Himalayas will have melted within thousands of pages in a report. They have apologised for this oversight [1]. You have to be totally inscrutable to present anything as scientific theory, data or fact, Technicals. But in the eyes of many sceptics/deniers anything that has been peer reviewed many times and published in a credible journal is an example of a conspiracy but anything that is thrown together and fudged Monckton style is to be lauded and held up as proof the alarmists have got it all wrong. What a topsy turvy world you inhabit! And even weirder, you do not get it. You do not see the irony!

I am seriously half expecting you to come out some time soon and say "just kidding everyone, I was trying to show the irony of God-bothering and climate scepticism all rolled up in one and I think I have done it - suckers!" But I somehow don't think it will happen.

This chart is far from acceptable. Thy only concept of temperature is descriptive - very cold, cold, warm and very warm. There are no figures to speak of. You are kidding yourself if you think this is anything more than a novelty.

The really scary thing is that you are still defending it. Talk about going down with the Titanic. I do admire your tenacity but surely your energy would be better spent defending the defensible?

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/01/21/21climatewire-climate-science-panel-apologizes-for-himalay-25267.html

P.S. Where is 2010, the equal hottest year on record? That alone discredits the chart entirely.