Poirot wrote:"As I said, it's the "skeptics" who revel in the short-term cherry-pick. Qanda was referring to the satellite data available on Arctic ice loss....(although, nice pedantic cherry-pick to try and punch a hole in his argument)."

that's not even close to true. Indeed you are the first to even mention the word "Arctic" in this thread.

Its pretty funny, the way Poirot just dismisses anything that confronts her beliefs as a "cherry-pick". Still it does allow her to avoid all that pesky thinking.

Here's the thing. If you look at the last 100 or so years and look at temp trends over that period you'll find that the 30 yrs trend from around 1980 to around 2010 provides the highest temp trend rates. Depending on the dataset used, the next highest is the 50yr trend, then the 20yr, 70yr, 100yr, 15yr, and 10yr. the difference is substantial with the 100yr trend being less than 1 deg C but the 30 yr being close to 2 deg C / century.

Consequently, warmists are happy to use the 30 yr trend rate since it most favours their arguments. But there is nothing magical about 30 yrs as opposed to, say, 100yrs. And I was simply pointing this out to qanda.

Now as the climate continues to not warm, the 30yr trend rate will decline and we will arrive at a point around 2020 when the 50yr trend rate will be the highest. I suspect that around that time, warmists, if they still exist, will magically decide that 50yrs is a far better measure than 30 yrs...and its just cherry-picking by those naughty sceptics to use the 30yr trend.

the more things change.....

Mhaze,
<< Its pretty funny, the way Poirot just dismisses anything that confronts her beliefs as a "cherry-pick". Still it does allow her to avoid all that pesky thinking>>

So you noticed that too, eh!

And what makes it even funnier and ironic is, she’s won the Oscar for Best Cherry Picker of the year at the OLO Academy Awards for 10 years in a row (and it was always a battle for second between Warmair and Qanda)

Yes, sorry about the "Arctic" reference, qanda and mhaze...(that's what happens when there are three climate threads going, together with some other stuff I've been looking at)

SPQR,

Talking about "thinking" - you should try it sometime.

It might assist in curbing your desire to link to sites like that of Randy Mann (a most unfortunate name:) and Cliff Harris.

Weird stuff.....

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/toxic-legacies-malcolm-roberts-his-csiroh-report-and-the-anti-semitic-roots-of-the-international-bankers-conspiracy-theory/

The mind boggles!

Reminds me of this:

http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/GarnautMarch2011.pdf

Weirder and weirder.

To all you skeptics out there,the half-wits,the dim-wits,the ignorant,the simple and the stubborn. Im going to put forward a very plain and crude interpretation of the issue. If you can't get your head around it,please refrain from commenting further because the rest of us start to pass judgement on the capacity you have to learn and understand. The same way that we judge the learning capacity and lack of understanding from Tony Abbott ,etc..etc..you know the type.
OK,ready....?
1. Do you believe millions of tonnes of coal has been extracted from the earth.
2. Do you believe millions of tonnes (litres) of oil has also been extracted from the earth.
3. Do you believe all these units of carbon are burnt for the release of its energy.
4. (A) Do you believe burning all this carbon makes the earth smell like perfume and flowers.......OR
4. (B) Do you believe we are.......STINKING UP THE JOINT !!