Dutchie Dutchie Dutchie
You sent me to that site, that is just what it said, under examples. The interesting thing is no matter what you plug into that site there is NO alarming evidence for warming in the last ten years. Lets look shall we at a few things.
a) the data you chose is HADCRUT3 variance adjusted, not the UAH which Bob Carter used in his chart.
Ohhh OK, sorry, I just used their EXAMPLES.....so their default data set. None the less I will go do a few more! See below.
b) you need to learn something about cherry-picking start dates (you stumbled on a great choice with 2001).
Cherry Picking
FFS old mate, that is a science only known to the AGW camp. For a start, I did no Cherry picking of the sort, in fact I over did the data sample, as this is the end of 2011 I should have made the data from 2002 which gives a 10 year data set. So I will use that for these next few.
c) you need to learn something about putting different datasets in context
I do do I???? Those graphs used the same data sets, but hey I am glad you brought this up because using unreferenced different data sets (FRAUD) is exactly what the AGW's actually do.
Don't believe me? Just ask Kev07 and Penny Wong and Peter Garret about a meeting in Canberra a couple of years ago when they(AGW's) pulled out a bunch of charts as evidence. If it were not by sheer fluke that one member of the meeting group had not had a discussion with a Ian Plimer a day before hand was made aware of the deliberate method of deception.
So here we go, just some random selections of data sets. Hardly convincing of anything alarming in climate change, despite CO2 still rising. Even the one with a slight rise is damned near flat line.
And best of all lets try using the WoodForTrees data set, remember this guy claims he has no axe to grind but is on the green side of the spectrum.
If you are going to play with the big boys, you need to know roughly what you're doing,
And I never said I was on the world stage with the big boys, but apparently you are??????
The funny thing is the AGW camp peer review their own propoganda, then along comes a mathematics genius and finds there is fraud in the "evidence" and the IPCC had fallen for it. I do not need to be a climatologist to follow that logic.