Actually, he seems to be arguing about the word 'gradual'.

I find that article confusing.  The following is stated:

The answer to the question, has the climate gradually warmed over the past 100 years, is no, the climate has not gradually warmed—it has oscillated back and forth between warm and cool periods four times during the past century (Figure 1),

Yet 'Figure 1' shows clearly an upward trend. Yes, there is a clear oscillation but equally clearly each successive trough and peak is higher than the previous one.

Talk about distorting the truth.

Are you threatening me with the Comfy Chair, Four? Or are you threatening to say "Ni" to me for a Second Time?

Cheers - John

Or perhaps you could start by being honest and not devious??

Back to the stone age 

We're going where we're going.  Where do you think that might be?

We cannot continue as we are indefinitely - there aren't the natural resources to do so.  So what's your answer?

Head in sand, not my problem?

in 4 words or less 4 (of course! that's why you're 'Four'!!!).

I'm supposed to say 'You want us to go back to the stone age'
Then you deny it, get annoyed, and make personal insults.
Do try to keep to the plot, you seem to have prempted my line with that picture.

This is interesting. Heretics, burn them! (oops, more CO2)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html 

Silly games if you like Gray.

Curious interpretation Tony

We have not managed our development with sustainability in mind.  Too much of our thinking is a century out of line with the numbers of human beings and our current capabilities of exploiting the natural world.

It never fails to amaze me that some people are unable to think outside the box.  Human beings cannot continue on the current path forever, it's just not possible.

I think the silly games are being played by those who won't face up to the challenges.

Your pavlovian response to a light hearted cartoon speaks volumes.

We all know what silly games are.

A curious silly graphic prompting for curious silly responces.

I think Four in this case managed to spot the ruse and responded in kind,(much like you profess to do yourself at times).

We could all do with less of this emotional, agenda based rubbish.imo.

And get on with what we do best as a species.

Survive and find ways to survive and move forward with hope and determination.

Not like the silly depressing Cartoon we are discussing.

Most people are coming to know the situation when it comes to resourses and are getting smart to it.

Great strides are being made to overcome our resource situation.

Let's not drop the shoulders and spread hopelessness and scorn upon ourselves.

Oh, if only it were true.

Just thought I would point out the irony of GW posting that caption, whilst using modern technology. 

Happy New Year SC, long time no post....

Take things for granted at your peril.

Exactly. 

There's an awful lot of wishful thinking around.

Happy New Year Gandalf, I tend not to post too much in here these days, the merry go round makes a little dizzy nowadays.

Look lads,

How about great steps instead of strides.will that do.

How's about laying to rest the varience of solar output (and not our orbital forcings!) as a major Climate driver? We seem to have a lot of 'naysayers' trying to convince folk that any reduction in solar output will lead to forcings greater than the forcings mankind has set in motion across the globe. This is a dangerous 'non-truth' yet it appears, to some, that it is the be all and end all of Earth's global climate ?

There are correlations between certain types of solar output and high latitude blocking in winter. The effect of this blocking on regional temperatures can be significantly greater than any global warming effect, and the last 2 winters have illustrated this. Very mild temperatures in Greenland coinciding with a frigid Britain in December 2010 for example.

On a global scale, however, some studies have indicated that the dampening effect on global warming will be small. 

I have to agree that low solar (and Arctic Amplification?)  leads to the type of Atlantic blocking we saw the last 2 winters but , as you also point out, this allows for warmer temps in other areas 'balancing out' the cold plunges. If the background is for warmer temps year on year then the winter does not impact this.

Due to the areas where we saw the warmth go I'd even say that this was not a good impact during warming as the areas recieving warmth are the ones we need to stay cold?

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2012/trend:1.0/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2012

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2012/trend:1.0/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2012

I wonder why it makes such a big difference when you start the data. Big El-Nino, time period just too short.

Or, not wishing to pick cherries

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1995/to:2012/trend:1.0/plot/gistemp/from:1995/to:2012

So there is a warming from 2000 to 2012 and from 1995 to 2012. There was a spike in 1998 due to the exceptional strong El-Nino.