is how I rate Dr. Jeff Matthews in terms of both the information he imparts and qualified opinion in respect of matters arising to my more general readers..
Not overlooking, of course, his very informed and informative, and sometimes humor-laden, commentariat..
As to the first of these – “lower atmosphere” – which JM relates as being up to 14000 feet or so, one is aware of Monckton’s mention in the australian ABC-moderated debate with Tim Lambert. TL’s blog deltoid is carrying this along with a a somewhat lengthy and IMO over-tolerant commentary section. Anyways, why did LeMonck mention this particular atmospheric section?—what was special about it?—for singling out?
Preference or what! If anything. In this ‘crowning’ debate against one of Australia’s leading scientists there was to be no wastage of words. Crispness was the thing. And a steady gaze. Unmoving on-camera, even when one’s knowledge on a particular topic — not to mention one’s own* particular topic 🙂 — would reveal either utter ignorance or worse, a total misunderstanding and misleading on the matter.
Well @ link above JM has it. The reason why LeMonck et al have come up with lower atmosphere as the spot to be, as it were, for temperature risings is because those satellite recorded anomalies are lower than recorded ground temperature anomalies. And with significant good common sense JM adds understandable value to this point.
Secondly, there’s wit in the form of local regional gripes as when one commenter – number 2 or 3 – inserted a graph in respect of local US post prices. Go. Enjoy!
* qv Deltoid – Monckton’s McLuhan moment.