I can only assume your problem with the "97%" meta-study result was not considering those that didn't express a position on the issue in their abstract. They weren't counted either way. But if you're expecting that considering those would move the percentage downward, other studies suggest you'd be in for a nasty shock:

http://skepticalscience.com/97...

Next, how are the graphs not of the same thing? Both compare the predictions of various models with observed temperatures. The only difference is that the one I linked to takes the observed temperatures from 3 different institutions' sensor systems, and the one you linked to takes them from 2 satellites and 4 balloons. Also the date range on yours is slightly wider in both directions.

In case you weren't looking at the right one, it's this one specifically:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

The study you linked to about overestimations basically makes the "only atmospheric warming" argument, which is what creates the illusion of "the pause." The UK's MET office has a nice page on this:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/re...

The Government Control Over All Autonomous Cars Act. It's a working title, we're trying to come up with a backronym for SAFECAR.

So did you not look at the graphs I link to, or do you take issue with them? They show that the IPCC predictions are very accurate. Are you going to argue atmospheric vs. oceanic warming? The IPCC has never admitted to a major inaccuracy (major being greater than 0.01C per decade - about 1% of the current error claimed by Roy Spencer's hogwash). And that admission has become the most overhyped played-out sound bite since "HIDE TEH DECLINEZ!!1!"

OK. Let's say the climate models are flawed. The world's scientists have been notified. Why do you think they've done nothing about it? Your implications logically lead to this question. Or, let me guess, you prefer not to speculate while making these insidious implications?

My weak passwords aren't actually weak but they're relatively simple, I use them for forums etc, my email has a STRONG password because it's the keys to the kingdom of all my accounts, and if I used online banking that would have a strong password as well.

Something that helps to make a simple password unique and stronger yet memorable is to come up with a way to mix in something from each site. For example you could postfix them with the dominant color on the site, for Slashdot that would be green.

They wouldn't bother to manipulate this poll. It has to be something meaningful, like the next time a whistleblower is nominated for Time Magazine Person of the Year.

I'm not disappointed. This is what I expect from those sociopaths. Don't be fooled by their clothes or trendy offices.

You can't bulldoze, but there are other options:

http://www.sfgenealogy.com/sf/...

And under what circumstances can a government (other than Israel's) bulldoze a house?

"Oooh look, incendiary rounds! Gotta try these out at the range!" - God

The "observed" numbers in Spencer's graphs are cherry-picked from very specific sources. 4 balloons and 2 satellites out of all the sources available. If you use a more varied and meaningful set of sources, it all matches up. Again, it's garbage. Shit in graph form. And you ate the whole thing. If you knew what you were talking about, or weren't willfully ignorant, I wouldn't have to point this out.

You can tiptoe around writing the word "conspiracy" all you want but that's exactly what you're implying. You're saying that all the world's scientists are intentionally wrong about this in the face of what you consider to be damning evidence.

Anyone can shit out garbage in graph form. Here are some more graphs which on the face of it are just as good as yours, but if you do some research you'll find are not composed of bullshit, unlike yours.

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

(Jump to "Earth has warmed as expected")

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

There's this whole world where you can live in your delusion if you don't want out. You have to stop falling for paid shills like Anthony Watts and others who have been fooled by their ilk. They're making a sucker out of you. You're taking their word over 97% of scientists.

Which is an easier conspiracy to pull off, one involving tens of thousands of scientists around the world or one involving a handful of mostly American bloggers, most of which been outed for being on the take from conservative think-tanks and fossil fuel companies?

You say that like it's a bad thing, it was part of the system working to rigorously test new theories on fundamental laws of physics. And it worked.

Maybe their market research found that T&A would sell better than Chris Hemsworth's abs, leading to this decision.

Kinda breaks with Norse mythology too...

We live in different realities. All our best research so far suggests one of them is consistent with our best observations of reality, and that one of them is very inconsistent - or "wrong" and on a whole, becoming more wrong every day. That's why we see things so very differently.

I'm going back to my reality. See ya.

Addendum: And if you do take the time to refute the supposed connection between the point presented in the post and the information in the link (or sometimes the info in the link itself), then you have fallen into a Research Glue Trap. Quick and easy for the trapper to lay down, nasty work for you to trudge through, and all it really accomplished was to waste your time and effort.

Of course. Nobody ever shows you spewing garbage, according to you. Just like Jenny McCarthy.