How cute! The climate thinks it’s people! 
Not accurate at all, as it was posted before you are wrong on everything you posted, you are not dealing with it.
I did not ignore that, read it again, it was accepted, and then shown that while they claim something, their efforts demonstrate that they do not care at all that that they efforts are just a contradiction of what they claim to others.
This is the same misguided point as when they made other scientists report on the recent warming to seemingly to have stopped, it is a misleading point.
The point only works by ignoring that the warming persists, and virtually all the last 10 years are warmer than the previous ten, and so on.
And this once again demonstrates that even you can reach for the bag of contradictory points at the drop of a hat, if there is no warming then the position of Watts and others they have is a stupid one. It is warming (they said so), and coming right away with claims that is not (their research and other scientists are saying is not warming! NOT!), is really silly.
BTW it has to be clear that the last link goes to how that misleading point was applied to other climate scientists, it is clear that the same treatment from the contrarian blogosphere is being applied to Mann.
What fake skeptics ignore is that natural cycles and other factors causes slowdowns of the warming, once one takes those cycles into consideration the AGW warming signal is still there:
Well, it should had, as he pointed 3 years or more ago, but guys like Watts are not skeptics, they are fake ones as they do not take serious published research into account, there is plenty of evidence to dismiss what they claim.
Since you never care to respond to my actual posts but rahter to the ones you wanted to to write, I won’t bother much with your mother-of-all-webstie links, especially since they fabricate a sceptical position and then disprove the one they constructed.
You seem to think that these two statements are incompatible:
a) The temperature has risen in the last 100 years.
b) I thik the data has been compromised and we are drawing the wrong conclusions.
You love calling people names like “fake”, does it serve any purpose to further the debate? I always concede the evil, fake, paid off,antiscience aspects of the debate so that we can go forth with real sicence like albedo or forcings or ocean heat or black carbon. You love dwelling on the minutiae of “why did he say it”? You don’t dismiss what they say, you dismiss it because they say it a skepticalscience has a page for it, since you have confessed as to having no personal opinions on the subject.
I misspoke on Mann, it was Hansen. (pdf)
"Global Warming Standstill. The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade. It should be noted that the “standstill” temperature is at a much higher level than existed at any year in the prior decade except for the single year 1998, which had the strongest El Nino of the century. However, the standstill has led to a widespread assertion that “global warming has stopped”. Examination of this matter requires consideration of the principal climate forcing mechanisms that can drive climate change and the effects of stochastic (unforced) climate variability.
I love the part where he says flat, as in no change. Maybe Hansen is a deep-cover sceptic. Of course he says GW hasn’t stopped or anything, I’m not even remotely trying to make him say that.
Not a true statement at all, I’m on the record of agreeing with the opinions of the experts, as pointed many times before, the tactic of many contrarians is to just oppose a bloke on the internet and to look to shoot down uneducated opinions, why should one ignore the best opinions out there and just look for a personal one when the best science is available? Going for a source like Watts is the equivalent of depending on the religious philosophers that could believe in many contradictory ideas before breakfast and thinking that they are a good source of information.
And no, it is clear to all there that you did not read the science or the links and you are only demonstrating to all that you are not really understanding what Hansen is saying, read it again, he is complaining that “the widespread assertion” is not accurate at all. I have read and seen enough of the writing of Hansen to tell you that you are catasthrophically missing his point, Read the Tamino cite to see what Hansen and others actually see behind the “standstill”
A standstill that is still warmer than the previous decades, as pointed before, if AGW was not there the temperatures would be closer to what it was seen 30 or 40 years ago. Back in the 70’s most papers still predicted that warming was coming even though the apparent short term was showing a slight cooling in a longer standstill, point being that Hansen is not your friend and you are just following bad advice from people who told you that that Hansen quote shows the opposite of what he is reporting.
And even the conclusion of Hansen from your own cite shows that I was correct:
Indeed, the subject is very valid, there is a need for a discussion on why a good number of people are following certified poisoned wells of information regarding climate change, specially when those sources are continuing to poison the discussion of this subject in the US congress too.
So, finally we agree on the standstill…finally; it’d gone too long. We agree on the data, we disagree as to why or what the implications are.
Since I said *¨Of course he [Hansen] says GW hasn’t stopped or anything, I’m not even remotely trying to make him say that." *I can’t see why you try to teach me that Hansen says that GW is still going on. That happens when you debate “generic stereotypical debater” and not the one in the thread.
I will repeat it again: Hansen et al. (2013) doesn’t say or even remotely imply that GW has stopped. I fully and completely disavow any expression that may convey the intention of making it say that GW has stopped, because they most certainly deny it repeatedly. Hansen et al. (2003) is unequivocal in its view that despite the standstill in temperatures GW is still going on.
Now can we debate specific science? Albedo, irradiance, black carbon, data gathering, FOIA?
No, you in reality do not have your opinion at all, it is wrong anyhow as the science reports, more in the next reply:
I’m teaching it because you brought that quote to have it both ways, your sources are just still contradicting each other.
Of course, since Hansen is not remotely saying that, your silly point has to be once again remarked as that: As really silly, and I’m just showing why, because the reality is that you had to go to those corrupt sources to get that jab in.
I did warn you a long time ago, and no, you are still avoiding the subject, relying on inconsistent sources will get you to say misleading things, even if you want to tell yourself that you are doing something you are not giving us good information, just copy pasting the unfounded and wrong opinions and spin of others.
As science writer Peter Hadfield aka Potholer54 reported, you are indeed the reverse of what I’m doing, I already told you that I do go for the researched opinion, you also bring opinion that is not yours, and opinion that has been spinned beyond recognition and contradictory. As his videos reported for a long time what you are doing is just copying and pasting of wrong information, and the worst thing is that you are not noticing why it is wrong.
Why it is wrong was already reported, why I do know that you are not getting proper information? It is demonstrated on what Peter Hardfield reported, very silly retorts in message boards can confidently be found in a search as being copy and pasted from very unreliable sources, and not original at all.
Entering “Global Warming Standstill” and “Hansen” the first link goes indeed into the copy paste of that silly spin, it is coming from the contrarian climatedepot.com.
The take home message here is the same of what I’m trying to say in this thread, one has to be willing to dump poisoned wells of information, even when making silly and ultimately misleading statements. Indeed, what Hansen says has been confirmed, what you and other try to get across is just a contradiction, even when it was a sorry second hand attempt at spinning what the experts are actually saying.
What spin? What are you talking about? Who are you talking to?
How is copying directly from the paper a spin whle givin the full paper on the link directly from the source? What poisoned well? It’s Hansen’s own paper!
Didn’t I say that Hansen accepts the temperature standstill of the last decade while still fully, completely and unreservedly believing that GW is still going own? How is that a spin?
I don’t care what other people do with those quotes or what google or bing or altavista shows. I went straight to the paper so that there could be no spin.
What is my inconsistent source in this case?
How is Hansen’s own paper (they only one I quoted) a poisoned well?
Not you, that is clear, but the ones from climatedepot. The misleading spin is to get the “Global Warming Standstill” headline and report that it means something that it does not, your affirmation that you then understand what Hansen says is silly in that context, anyhow you came back telling us that I was correct, you disagree with Hansen in the end even if he is not saying that global warming has stopped.
Already pointed out, there are no easy pickings for your side, no good science to support it, therefore the spin of good articles is needed for contrarians to even say something that looks as having value.
You are also attempting to claim you did not say this:
[QUOTE=Ají de Gallina]
We agree on the data, we disagree as to why or what the implications are.
[/quote]
That disagreement is baseless, and demonstrates that there is still in the end an attempt at spinning what Hansen said to turn to be the opposite.
Sorry, but what I demonstrated is that the spin is not new, nor original from you, you got it from the contrarian blogosphere, you only are a little bit more sophisticated in understanding Hansen was not saying that, but you can not help yourself on still agreeing with the spin they told you have when reading that article.
Once again, in the end you are only attempting to miss the point, Hansen’s paper supports me 100%, your disagreement after seeing that paper is really baseless and silly.
I don’t give a crap who climatedepot is, he/she/it/they are not in this debate nor has anly link to them has been offered as evidence, except by you saying it’s the first hit in google.
The “headline” comes from the Hansen article itself. What you said is false.
Yor claim that I (not someone else, but I) gave the article a spin is false; it is a lie.
Two things:
a) It is a deliberate falsehood on your part to say that I’m attempiting that (especially since it is on this very page).
b) Since the quote was about you and me it is wrong to now use it to say that I agree with Hansen (which I may, but that quote is not for that). Stop spreading falsehood.
My disagreement can be baseless, agreed. I am a complete ignorant idiot, agreed.
It is a lie to say that I tried to spin the article when I quoted directly from the paper which is found at the Columbia U website (not a sceptic website), especially since I included the part where he says global warming is still going.
There is no spin if I quote they entire part and link to the source. It is false to say I did.
Show the spin **I personally **gave or be shown as a liar.
Show where I personally attempt to miss the point, which is that even though the tempeature has not increased in the last century GW is still going on. I’ve said it repeatedly. You are spreading lies again.
I fully agree that Hansen’s work and an astonishing ammount (extremely close to 100%) of published worked by reputed, honest scientists is in agreement with your ideas.
I don’t mind being called ignorant. But stop telling lies about me. Debate what I say, not what others say somewhere. I stand by what I say or quote, but that doen’t mean that vouch for everyhting that is on that website forever.
Meh, besides braking rules you already acknowledged where the spin was, it was to continue to disagree with no good reason whatsoever, the point stands, it was a very silly and contradictory post to make. To deal properly and having any modicum of sense you need to explain properly why you disagree with what Hansen reports.
BTW, you have to realize that I do follow what I preach, It is very unproductive to deal with scientific points that come pre-misunderstood by others, the fact is that following the link of that spin from Climate Dedop one can find also the University Paper, of course what I have seen many times before is that the contrarian sites always count on their readers to not really check what the source is saying properly. The point here is that: isn’t interesting that people that get tricked into using spinned information in discussions get angry at the people showing where that came from than getting angry with the ones doing the spin?
I do prefer to look for the sources, once again: having your cake and eating it too makes a post silly and contradictory, not a lie; and once again, the silliness is coming from the contrarian blogosphere that has grabbed that perfectly good paper to claim something different from what Hansen actually said, things like that do not come from a vacuum.
You are better than them when you noticed that Hansen was not saying that, the point here for you is that this trip to claim that “Maybe Hansen is a deep-cover sceptic.” was not necessary.
Report me, then.
No contradiction at all by simply stating the truth.
You continue to repeated the falsehood that my information was pre-misunderstood by others. Stop repeating falsehoods. Or prove that I visited that website.
You continue to repeat the falsehood that I used spinned information You only proof is your very own conclusion from your very own google search. You still haven’t shown the spin, you only infer it. Show my misrepresentation or stop spreading falsehoods.
Your anger towards other people/blogs is not my problem. You try to use me as a proxy for them. I’m not.
I never get angry at anonymous people on a free website.
If it wasn’t 100000000000% obvious the tongue-in-cheekness of Hansen’s deep-coverness I apologise
You keep debating “the blogosphere”; I don’t give a rat’s ass about the blogosphere.
You repeat the falsehoog that I misrepresented a paper which provide in full and whose relevant portion I present in full even that which contradict my own (deluded, evil , ignoratn) ideas.
I’ll repeat: **My **Hansen quote was 100% spin free.
Houston we have a meltdown. 
Once again, claiming that “Maybe Hansen is a deep-cover sceptic” was a contradiction of what the paper said and/or silliness. BTW I do see tongue-in-cheekness as silliness, and really it was not necessary at all, unless that juxtaposition of Hansen came from an inception.
The point of bringing what the contrarian blogosphere is doing is relevant also as information to you and others, yours is not an original idea.
You have been here long enough to know that acusations of lying are forbidden in this forum.
Stop it.
Do not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]
Which idea are you specifically talking about in this particular thread? Be very specific and no ramblings about Anthony Watts kicking puppies.
OK
Big Al Gore :sigh:
You did not do the simple search huh? Nor looked at the date I assume.
BTW the original insult to the experts was like this:
[QUOTE=Ají de Gallina]
'Did you catch Mann accepting that there hasn’t been any warming for a decade? Maybe his BP/Shell/Heritage check finally cleared.
[/QUOTE]
The implied idea is clear, and it is not new at all, The idea that Hansen or others should mocked for saying something that climate scientists reported many years ago betrays an amazing ignorance.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/10/06/birth-of-a-crock/
That is also what Hansen is referring to in his paper, only to get a variation of the crock of 2010, what the contrarians are doing with the “warming has stopped” or variations of the “not a significant warming found” is to omit the reality that experts already take the variations and forcings under consideration.
The point here is to report that the media, specially from the right, has misinterpreted what Hansen reported, and they did so out of ignorance, or malice.
The new version of this crock was indeed posted yesterday or 2 days ago and, just like Peter Hadfield mentions, many times the contrarian blogosphere just goes for the misinterpretation and repeats the same crock in hundreds of sites coming eventually to someone that thinks it would make a good retort or joke.
And may others, just as Peter Hadfield reported, the problem is still the same, it was a crock, Hansen in the same paper is not saying what you later claimed to be a joke, when you mentioned Mann there was no clue whatsoever that you were attempting to do a silly joke.
Once again, you are smarter than that, but even a joke shows were the misinformation is coming from, sources that are actively corrupting the debate need to be denounced, and the ones that repeats them cluelessly need to be told about it, one has to make an effort to ignore their ruses.
Fact: There hasn’t been warming for a decade (Hansen et al. 2013)
Joke: Hansen’s check clearing. If Mr. Hansen expressens that he feels insulted by my (rather lame) joke, I will promptly apologise.
Fact: Hansen in no way has even rempotely tried to imply that the fact of the flat temperature disproves even the most worthless footnote of anyhting.
Fact: I am not “climate deniers”. I don’t have to answer for what “climate deniers” say, only for what I say.
Fact: I have never visited climatedepot. I feel no reason to justify what another person in a website I have never visited says.
Fact: I didn’t link to that wattsupwiththat link, therefore, I have no interest in justifying what is said there.
Fact: Jokes are not supposed to be taken seriously and are not part of whatever discussion they are in.
Fact: you still haven’t shown the spin I am supposed to have effected (except for my two jokes which are definitely not spin).