I think SkepticalScience hits the entire "cooling in the last decade" denial point dead on the head:

tinyurl*com/79n2mzr

Two words: CHERRY PICKING
Two more words: INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST

Any questions?

Can't believe there are climate change deniers left, still.

Nomad "alarming temperature drops in recent times". See the woodfortrees graph in my post to Ezee. The atmosphere cools in a La Nina; maybe you've heard about that? Ocean heat increases, and net planetary radiative imbalance increases as well.

Your ignorance is alarming, given how much time you've devoted to the topic.

Ezee, Since the story first ran in the mainstream media (Daily Mail), it's a bit "disingenuous" to suggest that it won't run in the mainstream media.

So, we'll do what we always do; go to woodfortrees and look at the data; tinyurl com/7p24wkz. Warming trends for start-1996 to end-2011 (15 years) are +0.07 and +0.17 C/decade for GISS and UAH respectively. (UAH used to be so reliable!)

Met Office response to Daily Mail story is at tinyurl com/7hr5zbn .

News that you will not see in mainstream media ,confirmation that the lastest warming cycle ended in 1997.

Extrapolated data from 30,000 measuring stations recently released from the Met Office and U E A C R U confirms that the latest warming trend which begun in the mid seventies finished 15 years ago as the sceptics have been saying all along.

Nomi, have you seen my post about the ISA?

Or how about the IPCCs take, which seems more elaborate?

tinyurl * com/2xl4c6 (page 6)

The "natural" global T there is given to be somewhat less than 14C. But then, that depends on when you start to measure: 1850? 1870? 1900?
Determining how much T has *changed* in regard to a certain 0-value is much easier, as you can see.

Models? If models were perfect, they could project short, medium and long term weather and climate trends with 100% accuracy. In reality, they have serious issues forecasting anything more than a few days. Need I say more?Once they become reliable for longer periods, perhaps then I can take them a bit more seriously. Or do you want me to start dishing out examples of utterly failed predictions of models?
"Anyone can write a book citing peer-reviewed literature, that doesn't make the book credible or peer-reviewed itself..." does that include the IPCC?

woobaka,"What SHOULD the average global temp be?" is stupid or terribly worded q?
Let me elaborate, although I think it will be futile... A RELATIVE value (0.8 deg) can only become an ABSOLUTE value (anomaly) if it has a reference to a setpoint (what average global temp should be)

You say that current estimates are that anthro CO2 is responsible for MOST of the warming? So it is not responsible for the whole 0.8deg? In any case, the 0.8 deg certainly does not take into account the alarming temp drops in recent times.

hehe @ iceman, if you have such difficulties de-cyphering "What SHOULD the average global temp be?", surely you must have found you "Scientist" label in a breakfast cereal box?
And thanks for the opportunity to elaborate about Donna Laframboise. She is no scientist, has never claimed to be one and does not discuss science at all in her book. "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert". You know, the activist student, whose imaginary 'studies' were sold by the IPCC as expert scientist peer-reviewed literature. The whole book digs deep to expose the fraud, corruption and cronyism within the activist controlled IPCC. Really worth a read, even if you don't want it to be true.
In any case, I'm suprised you haven't given up on your cause yet. According to the slimy head of the IPCC, "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late..."
But then again, Al Gore said that too once...

Have you seen the documentary "Fuel" by Josh Tickell? If so, what do you make of it?