BTW, if the post tries not to do any point, then again, it may not be cherry picking (thought I think that the subliminal message is of that nature), but by rigorous definition and ignoring any subtleties, it is pointless.

I apologize: this was an effort at humor. Never safe on climate weblogs. Of course this clever post is NOT ‘cherrypicking’ in any meaningful sense since no statistical conclusions are drawn. My accusation that the graphs omit the great ‘bucket/inlet’ period is only sarcasm (about that particularly pointless controversy).

I thought the ‘up-down’ fallacy would have given it away. There is no such fallacy although (although there IS an ‘excluded middle’ here, as Luis points out…). Up is ‘up’ and Down is ‘down’: I can’t believe that even semioticists, warmists or the the anti-fat diet police would hold otherwise.

Best wishes to you.

I am also a moron.

Is this a healthy discussion?

I stand by my reasoning that this post is a straw-man of gigantic proportions. Stephen’s comment, whoever he might reallybe (I couldn’t care less about that), has a point there. To say that both climbs are equal in slope and scope tells us nothing more than just that. It’s perfectly possible that the IPCC’s stance of GHG’s affecting one more than the other be true. So this post in particular is nonsensical (pointless). I’m looking forward for those videos Warren promised us, and I hope he doesn’t have this kind of rethorics backing him up. It wouldn’t be good.