So what's the statistical significance of trend lines fitted like this to carefully selected subsets of the data? Quite likely, none, but if it is significant, a competent scientist would have worked it out and stated it.

Dear Cohenite/Anthony Cox,

I think you meant 'roll'. Role would be more apt for your performance.

It has been fascinating watching you over the course of this thread.

You adopted quite a derisive and sarcastic tone when you referred to Viv's graphs and now you float this Dorothy Dixer pointing me at Nova's graph knowing full well that I had panned it on another thread.

I think you are jealous of these other 'pretenders', you are the 'anti-AGW dude' and the others don't come within a bull's roar of your 'breadth of knowledge' or 'debating skills'. You are the one slaving away at the coal face tirelessly taking on the 'warmists' while people like Nova and Forbes won't even 'get their hands dirty'.

Well even though I seem to part of whatever power trip you are on I will play.

In the other thread I said the link you posted was of “JoNova's graph of some areas of the temperature record Jones was asked to comment on in an interview.”

This is that interview;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

Phil Jones is asked to comment on the trend lines of three different time periods supplied by the interviewer which he did. In Jo Nova's graphic these suddenly become Phil Jones' Trend Lines. All of course designed to deflect from the obvious, the steadily hiking temperature. It is a smoke and mirrors graph and typical of the anti-AGW propagandists who will do just about anything to give their graphs some semblance of credibility, mostly it seems by ascribing them to the same people they so ferociously attack. Strange that!

Mr Redux, the Mr Smith of the equally Matrix world of AGW; Jones interview is [in]famous. He says:

"So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other."

As the graph shows.

But why would you believe anything someone such as Dr Jones says given his feature role in the email scandal:

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/more-emails-phil-jones-paid-13-7-million-in-grants-but-not-a-public-servant/

He's the sort of guy I'd want on my team; not.

Anyway Mr Redux, like all alarmists you live in the past so you may be interested in what the papers, the main scientific source for AGW, had to say about it in the past; this was compiled by Chris Gilham:

http://www.waclimate.net/climate-history.html

You have to love Fairfax: colder in 54, hotter in 51, and don't ask about 23.

AGW is a fairytale with lots of leeches, fools, ogres, trolls and all the rest of the usual imaginary things; pity it costs so much.

Dear Cohenite,

You say; “As the graph shows.”

Look at the bloody thing mate! The apex of each trend line is higher than the previous one which shows – wait for it... An overall significant warming trend!

Why do you clowns keep putting up a graph which is stark evidence of a climatically significant warming period as some crowning glory of anti-AGW?

It beggars belief.

What internal machinations must have to occur in your cauterised minds to enable you to ignore the bleeding obvious.

“It can't be an elephant because the big toe on each foot is not significantly different in size to the other!”

It is worse than childish. Snap out of it son.

I really have to be getting back to the real world so I'll make this it; yes, true Mr Redux, each increase begins at a higher point than before meaning there has been an overall warming trend during the latter part of the 19thC and through the 20thC; but the rate of each warming trend is similar meaning it cannot be due to AGW, since each warming period is punctuated by slight cooling periods which would mean AGW cools as well as warms.

Anyway the idea that in the current period natural variation, which even the AGW loons concede was responsible for the early warming periods, is temporarily suppressing AGW warming in the current period, makes no sense and could only be generated with creative manipulation of a computer model which in fact is how it was produced.

of course, cohenite, you would be perfectly happy to receive repeated requests for your past scientific work, and for instructions on how to run the software involved, etc, etc, and you wouldn't be concerned that the time involved in doing this would take you away from your future scientific work. But Phil Jones isn't in the same situation as you, is he?

You give an interesting lot of web links. For example,

http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/Koch_fig1.gif

(you don't know what that represents but I take it you liked the shape),

and now,
http://www.waclimate.net/climate-history.html
a wealth of articles describing warming weather in times past, and its supposed causes (_not_ including CO2) together with the comment "Yet our grandparents cared so little for us they didn’t introduce a CO2 tax"

There's an abundance of websites where you can actually learn about the science of climate change - cohenite has yet to link to any of them. Interesting.