I wrote:
>It doesn’t seem to me that “Azimuth” (whatever it is….) is always unanimous on all issues,
in particular there are definitely messages on Azimuth G+ which I wouldn’t sign.

Frederic wrote:

>Perhaps the easiest would be if Rasha followed the Forum, then we could discuss it further here (I once started a thread for this). But I think it already improved a lot. She is more selective than in the beginning and she quotes more carefully.

Just to make sure: I am not referring to Rasha Kamel in particular, when I say:
>in particular there are definitely messages on Azimuth G+ which I wouldn’t sign.

John wrote:
>I think the current policy of putting the author’s name at the end of Azimuth G+ posts is best, for the reasons already mentioned.

This is not always the current policy, like who has posted this article??!

Concerning this article you mentioned on G+:
The original article is not available for me and I find the article on realclimate which criticises it not very well understandable for an outsider, so I can only vaguely guess whats going on. What I sofar understood is that on the vertical axis ("12 months change of temperature (degree C unfiltered)" ) of the image you posted socalled DIFF12 values are displayed, which realclimate describes as

>"which really is meant to describe the rate of changes in the original curves."

So it seems the "12 months change of temperature (degree C unfiltered)" is some kind of derivative of the corresponding absolute temperatures?
I.e. do they display the speed of warming?

yes it would be good to have more discussions about that curves.

That article here however stirs also a lot of controversy up, at least with me.