Tea Baggers/Creationists detected.

How dare they start the graph in the same year the data starts!

Clearly more of a clue than you have.

"Hilarious" is a commonly used word from the far left, terrified and clueless individuals who have no answer to this fact. They omitted to show the atmosphere in red. This is supposed to instil a heating/burning atmosphere to the emotionally ridden unthinking. The Image intentionally shows reduced ice. Less than the NH summer. With absolutely no ice on the pole. The picture is carefully grafted NLP from end to end. Anyone who imagines this is hilarious must be some sort of psychopathic Malthusian who backs deliberate propaganda and lies from those who take money off the people.

These guys missed so much math when they were in high school. Their illogical approach to the data is limited to what they can surmise with a yardstick and the display.I couldn't even understand what the second guy was talking about. This is what you get when money spins the message; a circular narrowing of knowledge. Anyone ever read George Orwell???

Thomas Cooper yeah they seriously over did it with the metal yard stick..

There is plenty of global warming foolishness here at home. Recall James Hansen, global warming guru whose alarmist campaign was underwritten by his NASA paycheck. By the 2020s, Hansen predicted in 1986, the U.S. average annual temperature would rise 9 degrees Fahrenheit, or more, and up to 3 degrees by the 2010s. A funny thing happened on the way to the 2010s and 2020s. It didn’t get so hot. In fact, depending on which data set you use, it probably has cooled down for 17 years. A recent explanation for this pause (if not reversal), was offered in a scientific paper blaming the El Niño Pacific Ocean warming in 1997-98 for triggering the hiatus.

Obama Failed America Well said. All the alarmists' claims are wiped away in one stroke by one scientific paper, since it proves that our CO2 is not the cause of the observed CO2 rise in the atmosphere; "The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature", O Humlum, K Stordahl, JE Solheim - Global and Planetary Change, 2012 'The debate is over'. :)

***** indeed, there so full of shit funny and good luck 86, that dam carbon tax The Australian government said it would repeal the country’s carbon tax in July, saying new data on greenhouse gas emissions proved the controversial levy introduced by the previous Labor administration was inflicting “plenty of pain, with no environmental gain”. “The carbon tax is a $7bn hit on the economy every year. And it’s all for nothing,” said Greg Hunt, Australia’s environment minister, on Wednesday. “The carbon tax doesn’t work, plain and simple.” www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5032080c-8e28-11e3-98c6-00144feab7de.html#axzz2srtHhoNg

Yeah... it seems more like these guys should be debunking dodgy investment seminars

Canucklug I've got a bridge for sale if you are interested...

John Brookes I wonder which of you two is buying the lie? Obviously you have no bridge to sell and the last warming phase started in '79 and ended in '97.

m1aws '97? One of your fellow "skeptics" was saying 2003. But I guess as long as you agree that its now cooling, you'll be happy.

John Brookes '98 was the big El Nino spike so imo you could say it was 2000 although that would technically be cherry picking and not exactly science journal worthy. As I understand you get '97 as the point where the 5 year average has not increased from in a statistically significant degree. So I would guess that up to 2003 there was a small degree of warming that was less than statistically significant or that from the current 5 year average it's no warmer than '97. 17 years of no temperature increase isn't unquestionable proof of anything, except that the similar time of warming before that isn't unquestionable proof of anything either. (One 'warming friendly' scientist was asked how long of a 'pause' would be significant years ago and said 15 years)

Define your case.

They don't do anything dishonest in this video. If you side with the idea of starting at 1978 for the "trend", then you are a liar and a fool.

Morgan Wright 1978 was when the last warming trend began. "Skeptics cherry pick the data", they say. Oh the irony. Then they turn around and say, "ok, we'll start at 1910". In the bowels of the Dalton minimum.

Morgan Wright They start the data at 1978 because that's when the satellite data begins. The data used in that slide is an old version of the UAH satellite record. They could use a longer data set by using one of the surface records. Now the makers of the government video did deniers two favours: A) they used satellite data which fluctuates more with things like ENSO and volcanic activity than surface temperatures like GISS. This makes the trend less obvious. B) They ended the data in mid-2009 in the middle of a strong La Nina. If they used all available data the end of the line is again much higher. This second point is what these two clowns use to demonstrate their ignorance of statistical analysis. Makes you wonder why the government picked a data set that looked like a smaller warming trend than other data sets or even all of this one shows. If they wanted a tropospheric data set that made the warming trend look bigger they could have used HadAT2. (Red line in this graph comparing it to the UAH data set) It is also a valid empirical data set for the same region of the atmosphere. tamino.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/choose.jpeg?w=750&h=407 Makes you wonder what their real subliminal message is eh? Drawing a line between two data points and claiming it is a trend is an old David Rose (Daily Mail) trick but not how you calculate trend. You calculate a trend by including all the data points and use a method of trend calculation. In this case that mysterious red line is the trend calculated with the least squares method. Just using the ruler as these guys do either shows their complete ignorance or is intentionally done to fool people who don't understand trends, statistics, science. So if the red line is the actual trend line then why is the first point below zero? Any one who looks at any graph of anomalies will know that it is plotted against a long term average. In this case it may well be the average of the entire period. Being below the line (below the zero) simply means that point is below the average of the time period. In this and in other cases Beavis and Butthead hear pretend (or unaware) that these things they are calling nefarious are just well accepted, easily understood, standard practices. If they are unaware of these things then they have not looked at much climate science and if so why are they given air time to talk about something they know nothing about? Another interesting question is why has Anthony Watts over at WUWT endorsed their silliness? Could it be he'll publish anything that helps plant doubt into the under informed?

How funny. You mock Anthony Watts but quote Tamino, the known wizard of deceptive statistics with the 1000 horsepower cherry picker who has no regard for the truth. Global warming is over, the earth is colder this year than a witch's titty, Antarctic sea ice is at an all-time high, Arctic sea ice rebounded by 60% this year, the Great Lakes are frozen, and all you Chicken Little fools should be happy that the sky's not falling anymore, but you're not happy at all, you are desperatly trying to make up "scientific" reasons that prove AGW is still happening. Southern Ocean is stratified you say, so the increase in sea ice is caused by a decrease in sea ice. All the cold we are experiencing is cause by heat. There are no hurricanes anymore so you go all the way to the Philippines to find one, and then lie about it. The excessive cold is caused by a Polar Cyclone caused by AGW, where the stratosphere miraculously came down to the troposphere, rather than a normal polar high. You people are a bunch of liars, lying "for the cause", which is marxism, you people are truly disgusting.