It's always entertaining to catch the deniers in outright lies and utter fabrications.

It's always entertaining to catch the deniers of good science in outright lies and utter fabrications:

One fact is that there has been no statistically significant warming for quite awhile. The other is that temperatures in the Middle Ages, at the very least in the northern hemisphere, were considerably warmer than they are now.

Conceding both these points in a BBC interview was Professor Phil Jones. He was director of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, where the hacked Internet server released thousands of e-mails and other documents. Jones has temporarily stepped down pending an investigation.

According to the widely accepted authority on the subject, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the evidence for manmade warming is "unequivocal."

As Kevin Trenberth, a lead author, told Congress in 2007 when the group's latest report appeared: "The planet is running a 'fever' and 'it is apt to get much worse.'" (Not incidentally, that report won half the Nobel Peace Prize, with the other half going to global warming guru Al Gore.)

But in one of those hacked e-mails, Trenberth stated that "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment" which he deemed "a travesty." That most definitely was not meant for public consumption.

Jones, however, told the BBC there's been no "statistically significant" warming since 1995.

Hey Zat, where are those two links you post in every GW thread? You know, the ones that nobody reads, and always end with HAHAHAHAHA?

Zat's getting pretty desperate these days. If this is the best daily thread he can come up with to convince us that global warming is still heating his pool, things are dismal for him indeed.

Oops! Relevant links

Zat, every time you post about global warming it is an outright lie. You may not know it, but it is a lie just the same.

Keep embarrassing yourself fatso. You deserve it.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Mr. D'Aleo and Mr. Watts provide some amazing graphs showing that the jumps in measured global temperature occurred just when the number of weather stations was cut. But there is another bias that this change to more urban stations also exacerbates. Recorded temperatures in more urban areas rise over time simply because more densely populated areas produce more heat. Combining the greater share of weather stations in more urban areas over time with this urban heat effect also tends to increase the rate that recorded temperatures tend to rise over time.

Zat is that a bunsen burner under your weather station?