Cohenite/Anthony
Your article does not appear to coincide with reality.

Are you serious when you quote Lord Monckton of all people on climate change ? The guy may have an excellent classical education but a climate scientist he ain´t.

OK then you show a graphic from the Skeptical science global trend calculator. You claim that 17 years is an adequate time frame to identify a warming trend. So that means we start in 1996, which does not produce the graph you produced at the start of your article. I don´t care which data set you use. Only by using 1997 can you get a result close to yours. Which is one year short and then only by using the RSS data set, but if you use any of the other 7 sets and you get a positive trend. I recommend sticking to the legal profession, fruit picking is not as nearly as well paid.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

Then we go onto a wonderful graphic attributed to Roy Spencer, showing that global sea wind variability had actually declined, which is all very interesting, but totally irrelevant to what has happened over a a relatively small part of the equatorial pacific since 2000. There is no doubt the data supports Matthew English analysis (and the other 9 climate scientists).

To finish off the pretty pictures you provide another graphic which proves beyond reasonable doubt that when the surface gets hotter, the earth radiates more energy which is hardly surprising, but what we really need to know is whether increasing levels of Co2 and GHGs are absorbing a bigger chunk of the earth´s outgoing long wave spectrum over time, and this indeed has been found to be the case. This has been measured by various satellites such as the NASA IRIS, NASA AIRS satellite, AURA satellite, and the Japanese IMG satellite.

This site gives a neat explanation of the greenhouse effect. It is not necessary to understand the maths to get the point.
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/greenhouse-effect-revisited/

The graphic below demonstrates the close match between theoretical and practicable measurements of the short-wave radiation of the atmosphere.

http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/olr-toa-goody-1989-499px.png?w=500

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35

Dear Cohenite,

Well sir, if you had not looked my name up and made an honest mistake, and from my side I certainly had no intention of referencing a porn star, then Ozdoc's charge strands. You used the term 'porno man' entirely without justification in order to denigrate someone who was challenging your views.

Should that be an acceptable standard for and author on OLO? I think Ozdoc had every justification for raising the matter especially as he had no inkling when he did it of the offence its use may or may not have occasioned.

I certainly feel authors should be held to a higher standard and for you to have attacked Lyn Bender's piece in the manner you did was indeed a sad reflection on yourself and certainly not in keeping with the afore mentioned standard.

For the record you called her piece 'repugnant', 'garbage', accused her of writing “papers that are based on lies and deceit” off using “alleged 'facts'”, “complete misrepresentation, in short a lie”, and “This is not just delusional it is fanatical”. All in the space of a single post.

Fine, let's make it personal.

Just for you Ozdoc:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580

Hamilton left because this site just dared to give sceptics a venue. Now you disdain this site because this sceptic is rude. Hamilton supports Finkelstein, breaking the law and suspending democracy yet you find my rudeness less palatable then that [I presume you support Hamilton]. If so that's warped.

Steele I didn't have to look up your name, I recollected it; your name and your views deserve no more attention then that. With Bender's article, I don't resile at all; the inner city greenies and their indulgences have a lot to answer for.

Warmair, England is wrong, or Vecchi is wrong; take your pick.

Your stuff about OLR is merely a potted lesson about spectrums and the Greenhouse effect; I've read them. They still doesn't address the point that OLR is increasing. Your point that increased OLR reflects a raised temperature may be true as this graph of OLR and temperature shows:

http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20CPC%20EquatorOutgoingLWradiationAnomalyMonthly%20and%20HadCRUT3%20since1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

But the crucial issue is what is heating the surface; it can't be AGW because the relevant wavelengths are leaving as the increased OLR shows!

Nor can that radiation be heating the ocean.

As for temperature. I think this is amazing; the purpose of the exercise was to find the length of any negative or flat trend. How else could you do that except finding the furthest negative trend from the present and then seeing if that trend is maintained?

I prefer Brozek's analysis along with Nick Stokes to that of that dubious site SKS; Brozek uses the data and methods of NOAA, UEACRU and SKS to ascertain the negative trends in all the indices, with RSS the longest, and he's still wrong!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/03/statistical-significances-how-long-is-the-pause-now-includes-september-data/

Personally I'm glad I upset and offend you people. I started this debate nearly 10 years ago, sticking to the science and asking for answers; I've been abused continually, outrageously and unfairly; so too bad if you don't like my lack of manners. I'll always put the science first but I'm sure not tolerating any more garbage from alarmists.

It doesn't take much study of the Global warming scam to see that a quite large number of academics are pretty despicable people. Some are even using the current Victorian bush fires, & the UK floods to prop up their fraud.

That anyone can do this & ignore the freezing of most of the US shows how disgusting they are. Disgusting is really too weak an adjective for these people.

It is going to take at least 30 years for their reputation to be rehabilitated, & that is only if another group of them don't use another scam to line their pockets & those of our universities.

As the climate continues to cool, & the realization of the rip off sinks in, there is going to be a howling for blood by the general public. If there is any justice they will get it in spades.

cohenite:

"Personally I'm glad I upset and offend you people..."

There you have it, folks.

........

Graham,

"Ozdoc, you've wasted all our time in an attempt to shut down a debating rival on a false accusation. Perhaps next time you might ask for clarification from the rival before running to the umpire..."

What sort of impartial moderation is that?

Truth be known, it's your bias that usually gives incentive for "progressives" (as you call them) to finally exit OLO. I know a few who have left OLO ultimately because of personal run-ins with you (Squeers, bonmot and myself - to name but a few of the more recent)

We "progressives" don't mind being pinged if we break the code - but recent being pinged if we haven't.

On top of that, the likes of cohenite abuses and insults daily with seeming impunity - and you not only ignore it, but often stump up to defend it.

Poor show....

OZDOC

'utternutter, Hey utternutter, Nutter, Jester on the Sideline, I told him he was nutty, 'Slippery as a Butcher's dick', an upstart climate wannabe, Who in the hell do you think you are?’, ‘Some trumped up legal type..., the Munich Mob. A bunch of any excuse to do nothing' miscreants, a bunch of climate sceptics, You really are a piece of work. Time to grow up, You have just out nutted imajulianutter , You had my derision but now you have my sympathy. You really do need a Bex and a good lie down, your piffle, you old reprobate, the other kid in class has been so rude trying to butt in all the time, to make your case must almost be considered a form of mental illness. No need to return my pill bottle any time soon, What a clown, you create a cloud of virtually incomprehensible crap,from the doubters.'

All this disrespect and derision from someone who pompously pronounces to the world;

‘Disagree strongly with their arguments if you will but treat them with some respect.’
SteeleRedux, Friday, 17 January 2014 7:38:42 PM

The same bloke who when confronted with his own witlessness pronounces, on two occasions
'I did not set out to be completely historically accurate...'

and witlessly raves on in raptures with the following:

'Us adult entertainers care about the environment too!'
Oh what an absolute blast'

'But I must confess finding the name Steele Redux linked to a porno star, or at least a handsome womaniser, has made my bloody night'

'I have no intention of changing it now. What a ripper!'

then suddenly is affronted:

...from my side I certainly had no intention of referencing a porn star,' You used the term 'porno man' entirely without justification in order to denigrate someone who was challenging your views'

Jeez seriously Ozdoc you went in to bat for this person. No wonder Graham reacted the way he did. I bet he's having a grand wry laugh.