Q&A, good advice bubblebrain; now explain to the watching throng why and how the graphs are 'misleading', cherry-picked, etc, ad nauseum.

But, cohenite, there isn't a "watching throng".

There are just a few of us standing around scratching ourselves, waiting for you to stop calling people "bubblebrain" and convince me that I should take the word of a lawyer on the subject of climate science over those of scientists.

Then again, it's only OLO.

Poirot

Cox? he keeps massaging the cherries:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1979/to:1989/trend/plot/rss/from:1989/to:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2009/trend

What a difference a year makes!

I think you've seen this before:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif

Q&A says:

“What a difference a year makes!”

Actually none; Q&A’s WFT graph confirms the point that the 1990’s is where the modern heat is; Q&A’s reduction of a year on the end points shows that dramatically with the over-shoot of the 90’s heat statistically indicated by the line gaps between the 80’s and the 2000’s so that the trend in those ‘decades’ now becomes slightly positive; the article graph isolates the 90’s heat and is correlated with real events. In any event only a nut would seriously argue that the post 2000 temperature trend is the same as the trend in the 1990’s.

Q&A’s link to Sks and the “escalator” is even more egregious.

At Watts there is a whole page devoted to this nonsense:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Skeptical+science+temperature+escalator

What Sks has neglected is that statistical significance must be correlated with physical events and causes; its "escalator" is merely statistical showing off and is what AGW supporters do; the sceptics are only interested in real events and seeing if the data reflects those events; based on real events the escalator should look like this:

http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/09-realistc-escalator-in-global-temps.png

On the other hand, based on real events, that is, his comments here, this is what Q&A should look like to a confidence level of 95%:

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://rufiojones.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/goofy.gif&imgrefurl=http://rufiojones.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/cartoon-black-history-goofy/&h=700&w=612&sz=53&tbnid=UdJ2TUk5TgohrM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=84&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpicture%2Bof%2Bgoofy%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=picture+of+goofy&usg=__Ye7K5zuFxGxrKC1BWLo08zD13Cw=&docid=u1kVCULDFcb4VM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=50eDUf-aGOfoiAf2s4FI&sqi=2&ved=0CDgQ9QEwAw&dur=35

Hahaha

A legend in your own mind Mr Cox

pffft

Morning cohenite,

I'll see your Goofy cartoon, and raise you this.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/condensed-monckton/

(I know which one is funnier - yuk,yuk :)