real climate scientists admit no rise in 10 yr, page-57

Hi AntN,

You obviously know you are lieing so I won't go there. Just yesterday someone published an article showing water vapour was incorrectly modelled till date.

Instead of invalidating all models since H20 is the most potent ghg, the authour concluded - "this does not undermine the consensus but rather asks for a closer exmanination of water vapour modelling" - how did the authour already come to this conclusion? Again lack of respect for statistics. The smallest of uncertainty increase in an earlier timestep can cause a huge difference a million timesteps later. And this isnt even 1 process at play, with so many feedbacks and so many interdependencies I feel so much frustration when I read ignorant "rants" like this. Like I said, I would love it for these guys to trade with their modelling abilibities.

As for that thread "agw is..." - perhaps you should pay it a visit, I have the last post on it. Minor detail.

Tired of going round and round in circles on this, its obvious some people have a very very closed mind. Even when you read "By visual inspection" in the conclusion of a paper, some people still believe its science. P.S. You sent the link to that paper. Minor Detail.

Are you happy with the current advancement of these teachings to start predicting the placement of windfarms so they will be profitable to run in 25 years time? If you can't even predict this, how do you predict so much other junk!