moonshadow conveniently left out the following, and I even directly quote these from the article in his favourite newspaper The Daily Mail:
"Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions."
"...However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two."
What zorba is tacitly accusing me of is that I am being intentionally deceptive and dishonest in ostensibly leaving out some important information from the Daily Mail article that I would find in some way damaging to my position, though I suspect this will fool only those that are either exceedingly dim witted, or others like Zorba himself who actually know better but have no qualms about distorting, misrepresenting and lying about what I have stated because they can't effectively attack or reason with what I actually have said. Zorba's smear is rather simple to defend against.
First, if I post a link to an article, I have actually read the article with a fair degree of comprehension and I assume that those so inclined are also capable of reading the posted link, even though it is apparent some in this thread have made the blunder I would not take them to task for outright misrepresenting or lying about what the article stated. Unlike Zorba, who is given to lengthy wikipedia cut and pasteI posts under the illusion that this is a substitute for critical thinking or original thought, I find it neither necessary nor impressive to waste space doing so.
The fact that I posted the Daily Mail link in the first post of this thread is evidence zorba is outright lying by accusing me of selectively leaving out certain quotes in the article, as I fully expected one to read and comprehend everything in the article, including the above quote zorba has fixated upon. Zorba's failed diversionary lies and smears do not detract from the interesting fact I first offered for discussion in the thread, which is that for the last 16 years there has been no increase in global warming, even though most climatologists expected the latest Met office December 2012 data to show a dramatic increase.
And do not forget that in light of the latest data, scientists think their global warming computer models are deeply flawed, perhaps as flawed as zorba's intellectual or moral integrity.
Second, the reason I cited direct article quotes from Prof. Jones and Prof. Curry earlier in the thread, and which would be readily apparent to any reasonable person of average intelligence, was to show how highly unpredictable climate science is when compared to the highly predictable science of structural engineering, thus disproving stiefu's alarmist bridge illustration. I was not using those direct quotes to argue for anything else. The Prof. Jones quote Zorba pulls from the article is completely irrelevant to the point I was addressing but it does show the extent to which Zorba will go in order to smear, lie and cast aspersions on what has been said.
Here's the real graph of world temperatures, rather than the hodge-podge the daily mail made out of it:
I'm surprised that zorba, after seeing how dorbel's and ah_clem's foolhardy attempts to distort and mischaracterize the Daily Mail article were exposed and demolished, has now willingly laid bare his neck on the chopping block of truth, awaiting the sword of reason that will soon come slicing down.
This is essentially the same smear that dorbel and ah_clem first attempted in this thread, which was the Daily Mail article was biased, ridiculous, distorting the facts and making false claims. I thoroughly and effectively rebutted that earlier, but evidently the Pavlovian global warming alarmist conditioned response stimulus is so imbedded in Zorba's brain that he cannot help but mindlessly bark and salivate when the bell rings. As the Daily Mail smear has already been clearly exposed to be a naked assertion and zorba has completely failed to address that, it can now be accurately called a stupid assertion.
The green area represents the uncertainty margin.
But ah_clem already tackled this with his very clear example and explanation of what cherry picking in data sets lead to. I guess moonshadow missed that post.
Both dorbel and ah_clem falsely accused the Daily Mail article of cherry picking and I showed why that smear was false in considerable detail. Though zorba sarcastically opines that I missed ah_clems post, I can simply and correctly state zorba is lying because a few posts up in the thread, there is my fairly detailed response to the cherry picking accusations which to date have not been refuted.