JBowyer, like as if your respect has some value to me, I hate to deflate your ego, possibly to your Mum, your respect would be worth something, and so it should be. I know your not going to believe this, but until you just mentioned it I had never given my need for your respect a thought, maybe I should have.
Nor, do I have the slightest desire or intention to post a load of insults against you. Did you want me to do that? Would it make you feel better if I did? I cannot recall posting anything to you in the past, ever.
All I can say is you are entitled to your opinion.

<< Newman said much of the public service infrastructure would be resistant to change because of their “vested interests” in the status quo. >>

And therein is the essence of the argument against AGW.

Vested interests in the status quo… and the overwhelming power of those with vested interests to influence the actions of governments and opinions in the general community.

Sorry Haz, but you’ve been commandeered by the wrong side of this debate.

And somehow deep down I think you know it. The vehemence and frequency with which you express your views on this suggests to me that you are desperately trying to convince yourself that AGW is cr*p.

The evidence points strongly the other way. But ultimately, we just don’t know! And therefore we should all be sceptics and be erring on the side of caution. All but the most vehement denialists should be advocating the same thing – that we should be doing what we can to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and onto renewables.

And we need to realise that quite aside from any climate change consequences that our addiction to fossil fuels might have, that this would be a damn good idea anyway!

In short, the whole AGW debate should be redundant, as we should simply be doing the same things anyway regardless of whether it is real and critically serious or completely bogus.

The site won't let me post the graph, & I can't get a link to work. However if you are game check out the graph of Hadley Global Temperature Graph with trends by none less than Phil Jones, posted on JoNova's blog today. Even you lot have to believe the great god Jones, surely.

The graph of the older Hadley figures shows the same rises over the same periods. In fact the rise in temperature rise was fastest back in the later 1800s. Some of this stuff does depend on your starting point of course, a fact more exploited by the warmists.

Report back why this graph is wrong, or I'll know you are desperately avoiding the facts.

If he is any relation to Alan Jones i would take no notice at all.
The denialists say they can see back 540 million years, NASA says any farther back than 800,000 years can not be believed.

Dear Hasbeen,

Bloody hell mate you need to snap out of it. Just look at the damn graph. Are you really telling me that all you see is similar trend lines and not the fact that the underlying temperature is increasing?

It is like you climbing in an aircraft, doing a series of climbs then falls with little regard for your initial height each time, then claiming you can't be getting higher as the rate of climb was the same each manoeuvre.

Open your eyes and engage your brain.

People, please.

As often is the case, if you really want to find out what is happening, see what The Economist has to say on the subject.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21598610-slowdown-rising-temperatures-over-past-15-years-goes-being

"BETWEEN 1998 and 2013, the Earth’s surface temperature rose at a rate of 0.04°C a decade, far slower than the 0.18°C increase in the 1990s. Meanwhile, emissions of carbon dioxide (which would be expected to push temperatures up) rose uninterruptedly. This pause in warming has raised doubts in the public mind about climate change. A few sceptics say flatly that global warming has stopped. Others argue that scientists’ understanding of the climate is so flawed that their judgments about it cannot be accepted with any confidence. A convincing explanation of the pause therefore matters both to a proper understanding of the climate and to the credibility of climate science"

The article proceeds to provide the various explanations that have been required to put the position into perspective.

But - here's the thing - despite/because the article is balanced, it is unlikely to change your mind. But will at least leave you better informed than before. For those too lazy/time poor to go through it, here is the bottom line.

"The solar cycle is already turning. And aerosol cooling is likely to be reined in by China’s anti-pollution laws. Most of the circumstances that have put the planet’s temperature rise on 'pause' look temporary. Like the Terminator, global warming will be back."

So, everyone is right. Happy now?