Indeed. There should be an introduction into logic given to all high school kids, including such evasions of the deniers as shown here.

Why do so many people compare slow changes long ago with the rapid man-made increase now?

Mashiki, just comment on their site politely and they will respond. Or what did you post that got blocked?

You might also consider that I know what I am talking about. If you look at the average posting on realclimate it is polite, clearly worded, based on facts.
If on the contrary you look at the climate skeptics' sites, they mostly consist of slander, fake facts, and the like.

About the plot you assume: you are currently basing your opinion on material coming from anonymous hackers with a climate-skepticism agenda. Way to go, Rockoon.
Check http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/cru-hack-time-to-hit-back-hard/ for a response, I don't even want to bother with slander.

We have a future to save.

On your statistics claim: statistics are a part of science, it's a fact, face it. If you think realclimate does not understand it, make your case.

You are standing in the way of a better future.

Until this line: "Available evidence does NOT support the claim that man is responsible for global warming." you made sense.

Rockoon, yes he is actually spending a lot of time on clarifying the issue against a shitload of thugs like you that try to distract us from the real problem.

Allow me to extensively quote John Cook (http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html), as he is closer to the topic than I am.

What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? "Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998 http://www.elmhurst.edu/~richs/EC/FYS/Mannetal.OriginalPaper.pdf), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692171/pdf/43XA8LK6PCMVMH9H_353_65.pdf). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 ( http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/4/741/2008/cpd-4-741-2008.pdf ) which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

In the skeptic blogosphere, there is a disproportionate preoccupation with one small aspect of climate science - proxy record reconstructions of past climate (or even worse, ad hominem attacks on the scientists who perform these proxy reconstructions). This serves to distract from the physical realities currently being observed. Humans are raising CO2 levels ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm ). We're observing an enhanced greenhouse effect ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm ). The planet is still accumulating heat ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm ). What are the consequences of our climate's energy imbalance? Sea levels rise is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm ). Greenland ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm ). Arctic ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm ). Globally, glacier ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm ). Antarctic ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm ).

When you read through the many global warming skeptic arguments ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php ), a pattern emerges. Each skeptic argument misleads by focusing on one small piece of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture. To focus on a few suggestive emails while ignoring the wealth of empirical evidence for manmade global warming is yet another repeat of this tactic.

===
With this quote, how do you look at 'trick' and 'decline' now?

"There're a lot of people who stand to lose a lot of money if climate change is proved to have non-anthropogenic origins."

The money is in the other camp, silly.

And I agree that many people shout 'see! [no] Climate Change' at every snowflake in summer or heatwave in spring. That's why we have statistics and long term monitoring.

That might not have been a "hack", see 'Stolen CRU emails: Who are the criminals behind the conspiracy theorists?' at http://www.desmogblog.com/stolen-cru-emails-who-are-criminals-behind-conspiracy-theorists

If this refers to the 'triks' dug out in private mails from so-called hack in the mailsystem of CRU -which actually shows signs of an inside job-, check the response at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/ . Hint: quotemining.

"Is there some reason you picked the Channel TLT data and not the, say, Channel TLS data which reports a negative 0.325 K/decade? "

Actually the greenhouse gas theory does indicate a higher insulation value of the atmosphere, which logically means cooler temperatures at higher altitudes.

"For many years to come one will wonder if the data presented to support claims such as this has been "tricked" to conform to someone's belief instead of representing reality."

No, for many years the oil industry will keep paying supposed grassroot organisations to spread uncertainty and doubt about this issue. Especially in the US many non-climate-specialists want to believe it or they Way of Life (TM) would be seriously modified.

The trick is just a word used in a private mail to indicate a nice method. It is not meant to indicate faking.
The way they cherrypicked these mails, they must have been studying the way of creationists...

Huray!
If people won't limit their flying for the climate, then let them do it for their DNA!

Bill Gates must be God?

We are witnessing the birth of a new dogma: the Holy Quaternity.

I bet that if you discuss that the man will soon admit that he just claims it as The Thing to get media attention. I'ld add walking upright, talking, talking is likely related to throwing better -both require detailed muscle control-, agriculture, dividing tasks and task specialisation, some say religion, the scientific method, etc.