I don’t think so, and posted on it here in my own inimitable style.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/07/09/man-made-global-warming-debate-stifled-by-censorship-intimidation/#comment-95725

Jan 22, 1.10pm: “The hotspot has not happened.”
Jan 22, 3.26pm: “it’s either not there or can’t be measured yet”

Jan 15, 2.05pm: “I’ll admit that it [a tropospheric hotspot] is not [a unique fingerprint of greenhouse gas-related warming]”
Jan 22, 3.26pm: “I have no reason to disagree with the blackboard article”

Are you two different people, or just a multiple personality? Are either of you ever going to post a link to the scientific papers backing your views, or do you imagine that mere words are enough to persuade?

“You still don’t explain *why* the blackboard argument is wrong.” – but on Jan 15 at 2.05pm, you yourself agreed that it was wrong. Are you just stupid, are you just being contrary, or are you seriously a little bit wrong in the head?

“The ‘blackboard’ misunderstood the IPCC report, as you yourself admitted.”

I’ve read the blackboard article and the comments and discussions that follow, and I have no reason to disagree with the blackboard article, but if someone posted an intelligent counter argument I might change my mind. I’ve “admitted” that the Realclimate claim, even if true, is irrelevant. Your ignore the substance of my statement and twist it into something that somehow agrees with what you’re asserting, and I’m not even sure anyone can figure out what that is. You still don’t explain *why* the blackboard argument is wrong. That’s the key point. You just repeat the same assertion over and over again, now for the 3rd or 4th time.

“There is no contradiction between IPCC and realclimate, or between theory and observations of tropospheric temperatures. It really doesn’t take a lot of intelligence to understand that.”

This is a claim, not an argument. You have no argument. You just keep repeating your statement…

“Is your confusion simply stupidity, is it springing from a desperate desire simply to be contrary, or is it evidence of actual mental problems?”

I’m saying it’s either not there or can’t be measured yet. My opinion has not yet changed. It might change in the future, as more evidence comes to light of course. Now, pulling words out of the middle of sentences and chopping off the sentences before and after, and even the words before and after, shows a lack of intellectual integrity, doesn’t it?

Personally, I do not believe anyone in the real world could be as genuinely stupid as you. You seem to me to be an anti-AGW crank mascarading as a pro-AGW theory supporter, for the sole purpose of trying to make AGW look stupid. Why people engage is such childish behaviour, I have no idea.

And talking of intelligence: why, when talking about the hotspot on January 19, 2009, 8:15 pm, did you say “it is not there”, but less than 24 hours later on January 20, 2009, 4:33 pm say “As I said already, it may be there”? Is your confusion simply stupidity, is it springing from a desperate desire simply to be contrary, or is it evidence of actual mental problems?

(a) The blackboard posting (very first link in the above article) argues that the Realclimate assertion that the hot spot is caused by all kinds of warming is — nonsense. The Blackboard post quotes the IPCC report which does not agree with the Realclimate claim. You ignore all this and simply repeats the Realclimate claim… Is Realclimate correct or is the IPCC AR4 report correct? You seem to think that the IPCC is wrong and the Realclimate website is correct? Why? Rather than just repeat the Realclimate claim, which the Blackboard apparently demolished, you must at least show why the Blackboard’s argument is wrong.

(b) RPJ repeats the Realclimate claim without explaining why it matters in the slightest. If there’s been no warming, why is it even relevant to the discussion? Please explain. I.e., if the hotspot is not there or cannot be measured yet, why is arguing over the different things that might theoretically cause it (besides CO2) of any importance whatsoever?

(c) You say the science has moved on, and the hotspot is not considered important any more. The IPPC and even Realclimate authors stated only a few years ago that the hot spot was a “robust” prediction of the climate models. In scientific jargon, generally, “robust” means very likely to be true, or central to, a theory. Why doesn’t this sudden change of position not worry you? Why does this not diminish your confidence in the claims they make?

(d) You imply later that the hotspot does exist (contradicting your c statement) after all… Now if it does exist, but the hotspot can be caused by things other than CO2, why do you feel it can be used as evidence of anything? What exactly are you “laughing” about if you assert that the hotspot is not related to AGW but then use it as proof of AGW?

(e) You say that past climate is based on measurements but is also a “hindcast”. Which is a fancy word for “computer model”. It can’t be both, so which is it? You’ve been asked this question several times but have avoided responding to the apparent contradiction.

Please answer these questions. Every time you’re pressed you go off on an angry rant yelling abuse at those who point out the absurdities of what you write or try to change the subject.

To be honest I’m starting to get suspicious that you’re a ‘denier’ writing these posts on purpose to make AGW theory look intentionally stupid. Please demonstrate you are capable of rational thought, otherwise I think my suspicion is not unreasonable.

Thanks.