Yeah, I went to http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/02/climate-science-consensus-60-years-hadcrut-global-warming-those-stubborn-facts.html

and downloaded the excel dataset sheet used to generate the graph (link near bottom of post). Wow, what a bit of simplistic rubbish, designed to fool only the most credulous, kind of like those Nigerian scams I think. The numbers used for the calculation was highlighted for us in the sheet, it's a simple subtraction of single year datapoints.

If you do your own calculations and use 2010 as the start point instead of 2013, you get 0.721 degC warming for 1950-2010 and 0.245 degC for 1890-1950, or a nearly 3-fold increase in warming! However that doesn't fit the narrative does it, or in fact reasonable data analysis. Best you guys just believe what you want, like you always have.

The sad part is this is the second time I have seen this data trotted out on OLO. The first time I thought it was a joke.

60 years is nothing climate change will take a hundred years or more to catch up with what is in the atmosphere now. Shouldn't those two graphs be added together which makes the temp change about right.
We are now at 400 ppm , an all time high since industrialisation.

Thanks, Bugsy.

I was wondering where Hasbeen came up with that stuff.

"The recently released UK's global HadCRUT4 temperature records show that in fact the earth warmed 0.58C in the 60 years 1894 to 1953, when CO2 was much less than today, but only 0.39C in the 60 years 1954 to 2013, despite the increased CO2 in our atmosphere."

So easy to post a sentence like that with no link to source, data or method of calculation.

Most of us suspected it was from a denier source.

What you don't take into account our weather is reacting the co2 levels of 1914. Co2 stays in the atmosphere for many years. A time lapse of around 100 years is required for reaction time. Just because it was cooler yesterday don't mean anything.

579, It is useless trying to debate this issue with the non thinkers. I personally have no scientific knowledge on climate change, but base my belief on the evidence that has so far been put forward by the scientific community. The evidence in my view overwhelmingly supports the argument that climate change is real.
I don't believe the skeptics base their belief on any kind of rational scientific argument, but rather are driven by some kind of misguided philosophical notion that the pro line is being push by the left and therefore must be opposed at all cost, regardless of the consequences.

Paul 1405 You can pay up to the white coats and clipboards who squeal we are all going to die by drowning and then buy waterfront properties if you like. That's fine mate, it's just that lots of people say start taking funds from global warming alarmists and watch them all run away. The sooner the better I say!
Oh yes and do not forget to post a load of insults against me. I have no respect for you Paul so it is of no concern to me.