The CSIRO-BoM lot could do with a similar investigation to CRU, as someone points out here:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_government_cash_created_the_climategate_scandal/

“Ken Stewart has scanned the trend maps at BOM (Bureau of Meteorology), and his point is spot on. As soon as I saw the neat joint 6 page advertising pamphlet for the climate-theory-that’s-backed-by-bankers, I wondered what happened to the first 60 years of last century, and Ken found it. Did the BOM forget they have hundreds of datapoints from back then? Did they forget to use their own website, where you can pick-a-trend, any-trend, and choose the one with err…more convenient results? Or is the case that their collective mission is not necessarily to provide Australians with the most complete and appropriate information available, but to provide them with what the bureaucracy needs them to know? (And what they need to know apparently is the carefully censored version of the truth that will keep government ministers happy–let me tax them more; keep department heads smiling–let the climate cash cow continue, and last but not least, help staff “feel good”–I’m sure I’m helping the environment?)”

Read more about what was left out here

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-bom-csiro-report-its-what-they-dont-say-that-matters/

The IPCC was right about the glaciers, the only error, quite trivial actually, was that they simply named the wrong glaciers by accident.

“Shortly before midnight, the Eyjafjallajokull glacier, the island’s fifth largest, started to spew smoke and lava”.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032100378.html

You see? AGW is really real, if you’re willing to see the obvious evidence!

“if you calculate the solar forcing from the observed data it doesn’t explain the observed warming.”

I thought the warmists understood this and could explain it all because the ’science is settled’. Is Fluke conceding the point? Or maybe it’s along the lines of the standard ‘we don’t know, therefore humans are doing it’ thing.

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/10-it.s-gettin-hot-in-here-big-battle-over-climate-science/

Some of Luke’s ideas are worth pondering, like the coolest places should show the warming anomaly first. This will require some sleuthing.

I’ll ask point blank; does air temp affect SST ?

Do go on Derek – if you calculate the solar forcing from the observed data it doesn’t explain the observed warming. Like duh ! I assume you read all the references in the previous link. And isn’t it strange we haven’t plummeted to temperatures of 100 years ago – such a quiet Sun yet still so warm. Nah – don’t think about – you’ll turn into a pumpkin.

And yes correlation is the correct word ! Correlation of course does not mean cause and effect – but it is an English word used to express certain conditions. You seem to have a problem with it. One may say correlate then offer up other evidence to substantiate causation. Gee maybe I’m a deep philosopher to know that ? Like http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/papers-on-changes-in-dlr/

Let’s try another one – how many “sceptics” are creationists. Is there a correlation.

Schiller keeps up with his denialism parroting Spencer’s latest “finding”. And like dogs returning to their vomit the denialists use the specific to argue the general.

The climate models have always predicted the north will warm faster than the south – something about more land and less ocean. Too subtle? And the ozone depletion has effectively walled inner Antarctica from greenhouse warming (for a while).

All the discussion on this has been done here ad nauseum but denialists love to forget everything unfavourable. (Thompson and Solomon, 2002; Shindell and Schmidt, 2004) Such selective ongoing amnesia.