Count - I have 3 points to make :
1) You may be correct that not everyone who writes something on this site is an expert or maybe not even YOUR peer. But your assumption that they aren't (when you have no idea who they are) displays only condescension and arrogance.

2) Below is the BBC report of the story about the High Court judgement on Al Gores film. READ this and then compare to the story posted on the RealClimate website. As you will see the judge banned the film from being shown on a 'stand alone' basis because of its bias and errors. If the RealClimate site wants to twist this to make it sound like the judge rejected a call to totally ban the film then you will never find a better demonstration of how the truth can be twisted and how SPIN can be put onto a topic to make it look different than it really is! JUST COMPARE THESE TWO STORIES.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/


3) You never answered my criticism : aren't you a little bit curious as to how the 2001 IPCC temperature predictions could be so far out by 2007 - just 6 short years into the future ? Stop spinning your own little wheels and answer this question - from a peer.

Imran