Cherry pick on a broader scale, using the graph in the first IPCC report, showing the Medieval Warm Period, and it is evident that global temperatures are much cooler now than they were 800 years ago.

Here's the Hadley Centre/UK Met Office/IPCC data for you to plot for yourself: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/h...
Plot the temperatures and do your own interpretations, rather than relying on those with vested interests.

I like to go back as far as possible to the raw data. That way I don't have to rely on interpretation from others with their own agenda. In this way I've picked up various errors. Also, its surprising the variation between what the media reports, and what the data says. Sea level is a good example – we all hear how it's rising, yet when I checked the nearest recording point data (Fort Denison) I found no change for the last 2 years, 8mm increase in the previous 25 years, and 32mm in the 25 years before then. Also, it's been increasing for the past 20,000 years.

This is a long way from what the media is telling us. Islands are disappearing, and shoreline washing away. This trend is supposed to change and increase about 400mm in the next 40 years. I'll continue to monitor with great interest. So far, the models again aren't working.

Thanks

I know that this is blamed on other natural cooling influences – when it warms, it's blamed on CO2, when it cools, other reasons are assumed. If I look at data over the past 2,000 years, there's nothing unusual going on. Why suddenly blame CO2? Why no one or many of the other possibilities? It seems that the only ones pushing this are those who are financially dependent on it, and those who believe the media and don't bother to study the data themselves.

rhjames' data is taken from IPCC/Hadley Centre/UK Met Office. This is the basis for all the GW nonsense.

A regression using Excel shows a tiny cooling (-0.00048) .
If 1998 is excluded there is tiny warming (0.007)
In past 7 years there is a cooling (-0.1)

IPCC forecast for business as usual – warming (0.4)

The IPCC states that recent data should be used to validate their models' forecast of a 0.4 warming. Most clearly, the data shows that the forecasts of the IPCC are WRONG. The IPCC models (like all approximate models) have no ability to forecast the future.

The current trend is clearly clobal cooling, NOT warming.

This is another lie. What I presented was Hadley Centre's own interpretation of their work. The devil's in the details, including the ones you choose to ignore. It's called cherry picking. Explain if you will why without going into the usual conspiracy theory BS the Hadley Centre refuses to interpret their own data in a way that agrees with you.

In addition I showed a link to considered analysis and refutation of what Evans wrote as well as showing that he did not have the credentials you and he claimed he had. If you lie about one thing, such as credentials, what else are you lying about becomes a valid question but given that Evans commits the usual denialist crime against science of repeating already debunked claims and I show it then it is simply more proof of the dishonesty inherent in your statements when you claim that all I am doing is attacking his credentials.

Now, if you can still look at this data and tell me it's warming, I'll stop bothering you. We must have different systems of mathematics. For me, 2 is bigger than 1.

Secondly, you apparently do not even have a clue as to who David Evans is and what the nature of his “consultant” work was. His doctorate is in electrical engineering, not any field even remotely related to climatology. Evans worked as a computer programmer designing a carbon accounting system to help the Australian Greenhouse Office track the carbon footprint of Australia for reports for their obligation under the Kyoto treaty. He was not a “consultant” of any kind. His article that the blog you linked to referred to was just as bad as the claims that you and Carter make. The article, which appeared in the Australian, is debunked here by Tim Lambert.

“Please expose my lies.”

You asked, I delivered.

What do you want, or do not know? CO2 has increased 5% in the past 10 years. Surely you don't need me to back this up.

No temperature increase for the past 10 years? Go directly to Hadcrut data yourself and plot it. I could even Email you the plot to save you the trouble. – http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/h....

Perhaps you don't know about the GW signature. You can read extracts from a report by Dr. David Evans on http://www.divinecaroline.com/article/22353/632.... It even tells you how to go direct to the source.

I can just about pre-write your response. You'll try to question the information source validity. I'll just warn you that the Hadley Centre was set up to help prove global warming. Dr. David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office. Sorry I can't offer you a movie star or ex politician.

Please expose my lies. I'm sure anyone else reading this will be as interested as I. Even the IPCC agrees with the basic points I've made.

OK….now I will say that you are lying, rhjames. What you wrote is not a fact that is recognized by everyone who knows the science, it is only a constantly repeated lie repeated endlessly by the so-called skeptics. This is why you don't use links. You don't link for the same reason your friend Carter is terrified of peer review. Because what you post is completely wrong and in fact the links I provided prove it. Yet you claim that the opposite is true. Sorry, but a bald-faced claim with no supporting evidence that hasn't already been debunked. I don't need to sidestep anything because you are perfectly capable of falling flat on your face by yourself. Fortunately the other readers probably don't have your problem and understood the point of the articles I linked to.

For your convenience, I have pasted the evidence below. Note that I don't use links – just a couple of simple basic facts that are known by anyone who has studied the science.

For a start, for the last 10 years there's been no warming, although CO2 has increased 5%. If the positive feedback was dominant, and CO2 is the big driving force, I would have expected to see some response, even in that time. If nothing else, it indicates to me that CO2 is not the driving force it's made out to be. The models predict the “signature” 10km above the tropics – it isn't there.

You and your friend made claims concerning trends of the last decade. I posted multiple links to places discrediting those claims. In fact one of the articles itself had links to additional places discrediting other claims Carter made while the other one explains in detail just why the claim about global warming ending in 1998 is inherently dishonest. Just because you don't want to acknowledge them and Carter's venality in misrepresenting the science doesn't mean I have to repeat myself over and over again.

No one has done as much to discredit Carter as Carter himself. His membership in the Institute for Public Affairs shows that he is, in spite of his claims to the contrary, more interested in the politics than the science. He and those like him remind me of the geologist that after finding Jesus (via a very conservative Biblical literalist church) has spent his time trying to prove that the Earth is only 6000 years old and all the features that the science says are erosion and signs of the age of the planet are in fact just what happened when the Great Flood swept over the Earth while Noah saved all the animals in the ark. Carter has the same level of credibility after his statements like the one I quoted and his repetition of discredited “skeptic” claims even after they have been debunked.