[RogerFGay]

I've seen that. I didn't take it upon myself in this article to critique the letter in the way that you suggest. As you know, there's always another way, another wording, another .... well, I've been writing for a long time; there's no way to be perfect in everyone's eyes and typically no way to write anything that even the author thinks is perfect ... there's always another option to consider.

Now that I can talk openly, I actually don't think the letter is flawed. Perhaps we can assume that the people receiving the data have seen all the other representations, and are quite familiar with them. The letter comments on recent observations and provides a graph of them - demonstrating that predictions about what is supposed to happen, according to IPCC models, is not actually happening.

So, it appears to be right on target.

[lepton]

By the way...have you seen what the IPCC did with the Briffa graph? They used it to support the correlation between CO2 and temperatures (via proxy), and then when Briffa updated the proxy beyond the training period...they clipped it (and Rutherford) when it diverged. A reviewer of the IPCC document pointed out that they should at least explain why they did so, and their response consisted of “Rejected - though note ‘divergence’ issue will be discussed, still considered inappropriate to show recent section of Briffa et al. series.” No explanation of WHY...

http://www.climateaudit.org/?m=200712