[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Nice try Pooey? You often refer to Real Climarte as a source because its on your 'band wagon'?

No, I refer to that website because the authors are actual climate research scientists and not Economists with an opinion.

Quote by: xyzer When the climate data varies with model predictions you/he immediately compare the two asm a basis.for discussion. The graph is, I notice, and indicator of less than 1 degree in temperature change over a quarter century?

Yes, the accepted average rise in global temperature for this century is around 0.7C. So what is the problem?

Quote by: xyzer I notice the author of this deceptive article has erred immediately by including weather reports in the climate cycle?

How is it deceptive? What weather reports? You have it backwards, the article takes about how you shouldn't take data taken over short periods and try to establish a long term trend.

Quote by: xyzer That "dog wont hunt"? You and real climate have been rationalizing climate trends based on temperature measurements for years now. You have ignored temperature trends such as the cooling that accompanied industrial expansion in the last century?

Erm, are you referring the apparent cooling in the 1960s, do I have to explain that one to you again?.

Quote by: xyzer You and Real Climate keep throwing out graphs that shrink or expand the time frame to shape your arguments?

Which ones? Please specify.

Quote by: xyzer When the time frame is short, you rationalize by saying that a temperature change of less than 1 degree is important in climate measure? And you also do this in longer time frame graphs such as the infamous "Hockey Stick"? Interpretation of data is shaped to buttress your arguments?

You'll have to explain to me what the heck you're talking about.

Quote by: xyzer This para illustrates the point.... Weather is unrelated and yet you believers use it in your models?

Wow, what an idiotic statement to make. What do you think climate is? It's a "Climate is the average and variations of weather in a region over long periods of time." Borrowed from here

Quote by: xyzer I could individually challenge most of the drivel that this guy tries to peddle but this paragraph sums up the nonsense..

I have yet to see any challenge, all I can see is more of your usual drivel.

Quote by: xyzer In summary climate changes much more slowly than weather. The author is right about variability but bases and has based his models andconclusions on relatively short term(in a geologic sense) weather and its proxy revelations and yet when an actual measurement trends are used by those who would refute his analysis he claims weather (temp) changes are random and variable?

No, that's not what he said. You're drawing a strawman and using red herrings. His update clears things up a bit

These graphs illustrate that the 8-year trends in the UK Met Office data are of course just as noisy as in the GISS data; that 7-year trend lines are of course even noisier than 8-year trend lines; and that things start to stabilise (trends getting statistically robust) when 15-year averaging is used. This illustrates the key point we were trying to make: looking at only 8 years of data is looking primarily at the "noise" of interannual variability rather than at the forced long-term trend. This makes as much sense as analysing the temperature observations from 10-17 April to check whether it really gets warmer during spring.

Source
Now, are you trying to contend with the claim that waiting for more data before we get a conclusion is a poor way of doing science? I'd love to see your reasoning behind that...
Also, what measurement trends are you referring to? Please cite it specifically.