No need to apologise bonmot; what your graph showing the BEST results from the Muller team demonstrates is end-point fallacy, a particularly insidious form of cherry-picking. It is common in the AGW science as Figure 4.2 from the IPCC shows:

http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/image102.jpg

How is this cherry-picking? Look at this graph of a slightly asymmetrical sinusoidal oscillation;

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/cal2.jpg

The overall trend shows a slight increase as the red trend line shows; you can increase the trend by simply moving the start points nearer to the end of the wave pattern as the purple, brown and yellow trend lines show. Dr Glassman really does a number on this phony statistical method at Figures 15 and 16 here:

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html

The purpose of end-point fallacy is to create an inappropriate impression of an increase in something, in AGW’s case that temperature is increasing at an increasing rate. A correct way of viewing Global Average Temperature [GAT] is this:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1976/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1976/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:1880/trend

The changes in trend direction are correlated with reversal of the PDO sign.

You should also bear in mind the Muller/BEST results were land temperatures only and incorrectly discounted UHI. But thanks for coming bonmot

bonmot,

Re your post.

“Apologies to Anthony Cox, Barry Spinks and professor Roberts (sic)
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 6 January 2012 3:26:08 PM”

I have no problem with my loss of anonymity thanks to you, but I do regard it as a hostile act from a person who is now clearly angry, has lost self confidence and is unsure of how to handle the collapse of their AGW comfort zone. We did predict this outcome for you last year.

For “context” and to help you reconcile your angst, the following from earlier on this thread followed by some “relevance” to your position.

<<Warmers are like the “eunuch at the orgy who was always first with the gossip, but being forced to realize that he doesn’t really know what’s going on, his knowledge is not real and that far from being the centre of things, he is forever on the margin”.
(The Eunuch at the Orgy, Raymond Tallis)>>

<< You need to get your head around the difference between your version of science, “forecasts by scientists” and the real world which is “scientific forecasts”. The former is socialized or pseudo-science, the latter is real science subjected to scientific processes and rigor.>>

For you this means you are stuck with “forecasts by scientists”. These must be regurgitated endlessly with links because they cannot renew, they are political constructs and you are stuck holding them as they rapidly and publicly erode.

“Scientific forecasts” on the other hand, are immune from political influence, are subject to scientific rigor and can evolve with new information.

This leaves you and your like as the “Eunuchs at the Orgy”. You now realize that everything you “believed” was knowledge is not real and that far from being the centre of things, you are destined to be forever on the margin.

Now we all understand why you are so bitter and angry. Unfortunately we have no sympathy. You are a mature adult (?) and responsible for your own decisions.

Educated? Sure. Sadly not intelligent enough to avoid being gullible, which has got you here you are today. Hostile

Thanks for that Raymond Tallis quote spindoc, it led me to his very interesting chapter in his book "Newton's sleep: the two cultures and the two kingdoms". I find it interesting you would use it to try and label the scientists (or 'warmists' if you like) who work on climate the "eunuchs at the orgy". If you have read the whole chapter you would probably realise that he is talking more about he likes of Donna Laframboise or Alan Jones or even the multitude of scientifically illiterate bloggers who think that their opinion matters. He wasn't talking about the overturning of scientific hypotheses. In fact, the context in which you used it seems completely inappropriate and the original material does no credit to the anti-climate scientist ('skeptic') position.

Bugsy, a sense of irony is one of the human qualities missing from AGW exponents, inasmuch as qualities alarmists see in 'denialists' really better apply to themselves.

Judith Curry has an interesting take on the "error cascade" of AGW 'science' and the herd mentality that sustains such errors and prevents rectification here:

http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/05/error-cascade/#more-5780

Curry says:

"IMO the error cascade in the IPCC argument starts here: multidecadal and longer modes of natural internal variability are dismissed in the attribution arguments, based upon a flawed ‘detection’ of unusual warming (relative to natural variability) using climate model simulations that produce natural internal variability on time scales longer than ~20 years that is substantially lower (factor of 2-3) than observed variability (which is itself uncertain). Dangerous climate related impacts are then attributed to AGW, which leads to a policy prescription of CO2 mitigation. When people say the hockey stick and millennial climate reconstructions don’t really matter, I strongly disagree, since these data are crucial for empirical support of detection arguments."

The hockeystick, of course, is now discredited and subject to litigation.

Laframboise has an even better and funnier, and more alarming take on this 'herd mentality' of the alarmists here:

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/01/05/what-financial-meltdowns-teach-us-about-the-ipcc/

That's very funny cohenite, I was thinking just the same about you several days ago. Irony irony everywhere and not a drop to laugh at.

BTW, how is that publication record coming along? I see you linked to a couple PDF's apparently submitted for publication at least a couple of years ago but I can't find them in the literature. One even looked liked a proof and even had some sort of DOI attached, but I can't find that anywhere either. Why is that? I am genuinely curious.

"I am genuinely curious."

No you're not.

You should read this bugsy:

http://pressthink.org/2010/11/the-view-from-nowhere-questions-and-answers/

Some time ago Lambert quoted it with favour in maligning Monckton. Do you think a "View from Nowhere" is appropriate in reporting, discussing and even doing AGW 'science'?