"Long term trend":

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/hologisp2.png

"Long term trend"

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

Poirot, your NASA link requires a temporary disabling of my anti-virus software; since I regard NASA as a virus you can understand my reluctance to download their enabler.

Anyway, in regard to your previous post about NOAA and 2012 being on track to being the hottest La Nina year [something you excluded or missed], that's another lie:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/21/noaa-mixing-their-ninos/#more-76074

The guest post by Dr Paul Homewood simply points out that 2012 is NOT a La Nina year but an El Nino one which are typically warm; despite that, 2012, as measured by the satellites, RSS and UAH, and HadCrut, the only reliable land-based temperature indice, will not be a warm year and will continue the downward trend began in 1998, a El Nino year.

You're a sucker.

cohenite,

After 1998, can you tell me what were the next nine warmest years on record?

Were they all in the 21st century?

Even 2008, the coldest year of the 21st century, is still the 13th warmest year of the record.

That shows a long-term warming trend.

"That shows a long-term warming trend."

No, it shows a declining trend; it's basic running numbers fallacy; the data after a high spot in a trend can still be higher than data before the high spot but that does not change a declining trend.

And data has to be correlated with real and relevant phenomena, in this case the increase in CO2 and the PDO shift around 1998.

The conclusion is that if AGW is real and caused by increased CO2, natural variation must dominate it.

Even the AGW scientists [sic] have conceded this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html

Do some reading for a change.

cohenite,

http://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

"...'skeptics' cherrypick short periods of time, usually 10 years or less."