There may be some trick smoothing in MBH98 fig. 5b, but that’s a different matter. I’ve asked UC about it over at http://signals.auditblogs.com/2010/02/26/the-trick-timeline/comment-page-1/#comment-208.

You look about as classy as your hero when he dismisses criticism of his work with haughty remarks like

which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites

Now there’s a class act.

Tim,

In one of my first posts to your blog I made a comment about whatever topic and then described you as something along the lines of being a modern day Lamarckian Lysenko character. I believe you censored that one, which, by the way, I didn’t have a problem with and I’ve moderated my approach subsequently. Your use of the term “many comments” is a bit of a give away, really.

In regards to this site, I’d be interested in understanding what you’ve had censored. I’m a long term reader of climateaudit (though infrequent contributor) and can’t imagine what you’d be censored on given what is posted by others. Without trying to get into the ad hominem, discredit the person approach so favoured by pro-AGW sites, I’d reasonably suggest that you’re hardly a noted expert in the area of climate science, statistics or earth sciences, which puts you in the category with some of the other contributors such as Hearndon, TCO et al who seem to have no problem with unresearched and/or biased postings.

Regards

I understand that CO2 can both reflect certain short-wave radiation and absorb certain longer-wave reflected radiation.

I’ve never heard of CO2 reflecting short-wave radiation. What frequencies and to what extent?