Met don't appear to be shouting about 2010 being the "hottest" any longer.

The HadCRUT3 number for November 10 has finally been posted at +0.431C.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

On the site today 6th Jan 11 though the darlings have put an “updated” date of 20/12/2010!

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Anyhow +0.431C gives +0.493C for 11 months. Doubtful that it will get near the +0.548C (funny I thought it was +0.52C) for 1998. Might not even get to 2005 – +0.482C.

Time will tell.

According to sourcewatch
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Andrew_Montford

"Montford has a shaky grasp of objectivity at best. In a short Bishop Hill article Montford asks "Should we believe anything the Met Office says?" His concerns are based on nothing more than Chairman Robert Napier's CV.[4]

Andrew Montford, "A few months later he warms to the theme and claims Napier is an "environmental activist" (although he gives no evidence and does not even reference his point).[5]

I imagine being a senior representaive of the WWF, on the board of the Green Fiscal Commision, and the Carbon Disclosure Project, might not perhaps lead people to think, he campigns for the 'conensus' side.....

Sourcewatch look like nothing more than attempts to blacklist people....

Here's what the world looks like from the other side. Gavin from Realclimate in response to someone politely taking issue with him for suggesting that scientists aren't in fact afraid of losing grant or status if they dare to question the ‘consensus’.

Read Gavin's response. It's what the world looks like to someone in a position of unquestioning authority. where everyone he knows thinks the same.

"Ok, I'll respond anyway: No, I don't think that scientist never worry about their grants. For people on soft money, and for other scientists with post-docs and grad students to support, trying to maintain security of the funding is both stressful and time-consuming. The difference between the original statement and the imagined implication, is the reason why someone would be worried about there grants. This is usually a function of whether they've published enough, whether the data turned out to be interesting or not, etc. I know of no case and I have never heard it even raised among climate scientists that they are afraid that public discussion of climate or legitimate criticism of other scientists/science would cause them to be defunded. I have never been on a panel where someone's public comments on anything have influenced the funding decision. Whether you think I am 'credible' or not, that is the truth. You might imagine that there would be much more dis-consensus if grants were not on the line, but this is simply wishful thinking on your part. - gavin"

'However, December also turned out unusually sunny and dry, with less than half the expected amount of precipitation (snow and rain) falling, and with hours of sunlight nearly 40% above average.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12119329

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Richard Black should get a job on the comedy circuit

Nice post over at RPJ on the lack of man made climate change signal in hurricanes data ( no surprise there, but still worth a look!)

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/01/signals-of-anthropogenic-climate-change.html

Chris de Freitas in the NZ Herald today

Unlike most other hot button environmental issues, global warming is widely misunderstood. As a climate scientist thinking about this, it struck me that it was not surprising since accounts of the scientific basics of global warming almost never appear anywhere in the press.

link

Bah!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jan/03/renewables-green-energy-huhne

Interesting description of warmer ideology: elite moral porn.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10046/

Re brawl on Briggs and doom mongers thread

Sorry Andrew. Mea maxima culpa etc.

I'm afraid that the passive-aggressive tactic used by legjoints is more effective than I care to admit. You swat and swat - and there they are - waving all those legjoints at you still.

HSI mention:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100069795/the-most-important-book-of-2010/