I suspect that what you call "bashing mainstream scientist and misinterpreting science" is what most people would think of as "scientific argument". I know this can sometimes degenerate into name-calling, but then there is no progress in understanding. Therefore, name-calling is best avoided. If you still mean something different by "bashing", then please tell me what.
As far as Phil Jones is concerned, I can't change what he said. My take is that he was very honest in acknowledging the scientific uncertainties, but also clear that he hadn't changed his opinion, which is (of course) fine. Regarding cherry picking a cooling trend, I've tried to be clear that I see cycles in the data and not trends, and this applies to the behaviour observed since 2002 as well. I completely agree that the time period involved is still too short to draw any firm conclusions, but nonetheless the fact of the cooling seen in the temperature record remains.
You still go on about the 2002 and 2009 bs?? I can see you will never stop at attempting to cherry pick to prove your point!
I can see that you really have it in for Singer, but I think your reasons are derived from propaganda sources, rather than any arguments he makes. Admittedly, you have dismissed the NIPCC critique as unfounded, but without detailing any specific exceptions. I think you have not read it, and are again picking up on the general message from the propaganda sites you use. Who do you think is really spinning the science for the purpose of an agenda? To me, it seems far more likely to be these propaganda sites.
I also think that you have picked up the debating tactic of being rude and offensive from these propaganda sources. Read them critically: they have no rational arguments. They are cult science at its worst, an example of everything that is wrong with the modern environmental movement. Yet you seem willing to accept everything you read there at face value. Now I know this part of the forum is a good place for an argument, and obviously I'm all in favour, but the name-calling and repetition is starting to get a bit tiresome. Why can't you just accept that there is a genuine difference of opinion and proceed from there?
Bit rich coming from you lot when on my first day forum on and already you lot had it in for me. So call me abusive, go check you and your ilks posts!! I'm only using the debating tactics you lot use!
And for Singer, you probably didn't know he is the main author of the Alternative Consensus. A document I found full of holes to which you have absolutley no comment on. If indeed you were a scientist, you would be looking at the bastardisation of science he carries out so he can sell it the likes of you and Mike.
And as for you, all you can do is shower yourself with your own self-serving statements on how scientific your approach is when all you do is try to misinterpret science. Therefore I find it very hard you are an academic of any sort but most probably some armchair hack with delusions of grandeur.