Curmudgeon,

With the greatest of respect my last post was very relevant to the incorrect assertion that you were making that there was no clear upward trend in temperatures. I provided you with a link to numerous charts from numerous sources all allowing the reader to visually see the clear upward trend that exists. Can't get more relevant than that.

Check out www.skepticalscience.com for an explanation of why there was a slight cooling between 1940 and 1975.

rstuart, I'm not embarrassed as I'm not the one entering a Google war .. good luck with that, oh, and by the way, Wiki is hardly an objective source since it is way tainted, and well known to be.

"stuart .. Okay, to anyone familiar with the computer models, the section you cited is straight nonsense.. and I don't care how many times its repeated on google"

So you've entered the loop and now have to keep at it, quoting source after source .. none of which convince the average Australian who just sees you and your ilk as hysterical arm wavers screaming for attention, when it has passed you.

Claim counterclaim, insult counter insult .. and yet you want to insult me because I won't battle on your turf, which is the claim/ counterclaim Google battleground.

So seriously, does any of this support the PM claiming a great big new tax will .. what?

This is the big game now, what is it the tax will do?

Maybe you're one of the folks who insist you need to pay yet more tax ..?

Anywho, good luck with the Google war .. have fun .. did I mention goading just amuses me?

Mark Lawson, you know very well "Hadley" (sic) do not include data for the Arctic region (showing significant warming).

If they did the warming trend would be evident.

You know this. But yet again you distort the facts for yor own agenda.

This may help other readers, it has been posted elsewhere:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/5t12.jpg

There are 5 major sources of global temperature data which are most often referred to. Three of them are estimates of surface temperature, from NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), HadCRU (Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit in the U.K.), and NCDC (National Climate Data Center). The other two are estimates of lower-troposphere temperature, from RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) and UAH (Univ. of Alabama at Huntsville)

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/comparing-temperature-data-sets/

VK3AUU, David

The vast majority of the Northern Hemisphere experienced the coldest winter for 100 years. That's hardly an isolated area.

The Southern Hemisphere experienced it's most severe summer wet and coldest winter for years.

These facts are probably the precursor to a cooling. In fact when these are factored into average surface temps (the warmists cornerstone) then a cool trend is evidenced.

Agnostic of Mittagong, Tombee, rstuart, Rich2 you are all part of the warmist rump and you consensuel scientists have deserted you.

None of your comnsensuel scientists wrote any peer reviewed article that predicted the southern hemisphere summer torrents of rain or the massive snows across the northern hemisphere.

Now no-one would dare to write any scientific article claiming the current weather is the result of anything other than caused by naturally recurring events.

The weather is refuting your claims to warming. Try arguing you case with the weather.

Rich2/Bonmot

my apologies I seem to have confused you with Roses1. No, the post was largely irrelevent. The clear upward trend you speak off becomes very confused when you look at the details. Overall, temperatures shifted upwards between the mid-70s and the turn of the century, but why did it shift upwards? They fell betwen 1940 about and the mid-70s. Why? they have been static, mostly, for the past decade. Why?

Bonmot
the business about the Artic is the excuse Goddard uses for why its results are different to everyone else's. They had to do something to show some sort of warming trend, but even then the shift is very small. Hadley broadly agrees with the satellite data from UAH, which should now be the default series. Nothing has happened for more than a decade.

rstuart
It has occured to me where the problem lies. You, and the references you make, are confusing resolution with accuracy. The computer models can certainly be made to have greater resolution - that is, the results are in finer detail, but that does not mean they are more accurate.

Mark

So called "sceptics" trash HadCrut data and slam the Climatic Research Unit for their 'dastadly deeds' over 'climate-gate'.

But, wait for it ... they then, in typical 'denier' fashion - use HadCrut data to try and prove their inane and illogical point.

The epitome of hypocricy.