"12-year trend" is an oxymoron, you big silly. The site warns about playing with the trend line feature and fooling yourself by using short intervals that aren't significant. Want another one almost as short?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from...

By the way, if anyone hasn't gotten there and read up on the site, I recommend it: http://www.globalwarmingart.com
I've sent thanks and small contributions several times over quite a few years; it's quite a resource generously made available. And if you do want to use his images, each one has info attached specifying how you may use it and how to acknowledge where you got it.

A word, to the wise, is sufficient.

No, no, C3Po didn't say the graphs were 'similar' --- C3Po said he "never claimed here or anywhere that the graphs weren't simular" --- that's a Portugese word. I'm sure it makes sense to him, somehow.

> compare
I didn't mean plot Cuffey/Clow's data, though I'd be curious to know if it's actually available, did you find it in the paper or a reference to where they got their data points? I was just wondering how a blink/overlay of the stretched-and-flipped plot compares to the Monckton/Easterbrook thing; I'm still wondering whether some actual single data set lines up with the combined result of the eight proxies in the globalwarmingart chart. My recollection was that globalwarmingart says the GISP2 proxy line (light blue?) shown there has a lot more variation than the merged (black)--but I don't know if it's even the same GISP2 data.

Eventually it gets too tiresome to chase this stuff, especially since Easterbrook is sure he has on his own computer the actual data he charted, if he'd only cite it or post a copy of it somewhere.

Perhaps he's signed a nondisclosure .... no, don't go there.

Ah, what goes around comes around -- so did you compare that stretched and flipped curve to the others?
Link above is munged, it's at:http://hot-topic.co.nz/monckton-the-case-of-the-m...

I'm curious how well that "original"-after-stretching-and-flipping matches the one from globalwarmingart

Oh, wow: http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=1991

> use of the instrumental data without marking as being from a different source
Bullshit. You can, when you decide to quit lying about it, cite the exact information you pretend isn't there: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Holocen...

> motives
We don't even know for sure what data he used, or whether he produced those two graphs himself.
Remember people do get old, and trust too much, and get fooled about what they put their names on.
It's possible he asked someone to make up a graphic and told them what to use and trusted the result. We simply can't know unless he (sigh) shows or points to the data set, the actual numbers. Since his answer was that he had them on his own computer, there's no way to check what happened, let alone what his motives were.

Remember the Revelle/Singer story:
http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.htm?programID=94-P...
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-richard-lin...
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/11/the_real_tr...

My guess, this is a 'picador' story (or a 'rodeo clown' if you prefer the norteamericano sport) -- someone who's thrown into the ring to distract attention when there's some problem. It makes me curious what else was wrong in the stuff Heartland put up, more than curious about this stuff.

> is he claiming that this represents global temperatures ....?
"The data in my paper comes from oxygen isotope analyses of ice cores in Greenland made by Dr. Minze Stuiver and Dr. Peter Grootes, long recognized as the world standard for accurate paleotemperatures over thousands of years and used by thousands of scientists all over the world."http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/R...

But there's no data in his paper, just a picture, which isn't what he says. So it's hard to tell.

> Monckton
"If you buy an outfit you can be a cowboy too" applies -- the Guardian a while back quotes the House of Lords as saying there's no penalty for falsely claiming to be a member, in an article on his various candidacies. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/a...

Yep. The WTF crowd now is trying to associate the name "Romm" with someone who fought for the Nazis in WW2. They've run out of even bogus arguments and have nothing left but slime.