global warming fraud: the tide begins to turn, page-21

Hi Lighthouse, no I am not Kevin Rudd... I am his conscience, mwahahaha!

For what its worth I was surprised that Jenifer Marohasy quoted the Royal Society report on Q&A last night. Why quote a line from something that in toto does not support your position? I asked her why on her blog which I will re-post here so I don't have to have to write it up again:

"Jennifer, you chose to quote the Royal Society report "Climate Change: A Summary of the Science" tonight on Q&A where you said the report stated there has been no warming since 1970. Is this not a little disingenuous, given that the report says the warming has been largely concentrated in two periods, from around 1910 to around 1940 and from around 1975 to around 2000? This demonstrates that the 20th century warming was not in a straight line but does not suggest that the warming has suddenly stopped or reversed. You did not state that warming also 'stopped' after 1940. Where is the evidence to suggest the period from 1910 to 1940 was any different to 1975 to 2000? The trend is up. What evidence have you seen to suggest, as you were doing, that the trend has changed?

The report also states:

"When these surface temperatures are averaged over periods of a decade, to remove some of the year-to-year variability, each decade since the 1970s has been clearly warmer (given known uncertainties) than the one immediately preceding it. The decade 2000-2009 was, globally, around 0.15 deg C warmer than the decade 1990-1999." I believe this is quite self-explanatory yet it is at odds with your contention tonight on Q&A.

The report also says "observed variations in global temperature over a period of just a few years could be a misleading guide to underlying longer-term trends in global temperature" yet this is exactly what you attempted to do.

The report is a reinforcement of the consensus position on anthropogenic global warming, so I am very interested to know why you chose to quote from it when the vast bulk of the report is completely at odds with your position? Do you tell your blog readers to read that report, or would that be a little inconvenient? Isn't this one of the tactics of choice for most AGW sceptics, to cherry pick a line or a phrase which can then be morphed into supporting your position rather than the original intent of the report?"

P.S. I hope you all liked my little Monckton-ism above. :-)