Is the data correct or not? If it is correct it is anything but insignificant.

stop squirming! The article I've posted shows that your statement

is a lie. You can dress it up any way you want, and try to introduce strawman arguments as much as you want (mount St Helen for example erupted far longer than 17 years ago and has no bearing on the last 17 years). So please show me where is the article I linked to wrong. Show me that there has been no warming in the last 17 years. I've presented evidence... now its your turn to do the same... not just offer some conjecture.

If you accept that the warming has happened... THEN we can discuss the science and the cause!

I'm sorry mate but you are out of your depth. Just because you make a measurement doesn't mean because it is precise, it is accurate. Accuracy is a mean figure based on the distribution over time. In the period where the earth has supported life, any measurement of energy distribution must take into account the relevant time-scale. Therefore 50 years is insignificant statistically. FACT.

Therefore the data although possibly precise (which I dispute due to the lack of inclusion of influencing factors which you haven't addressed) it is not accurate because the mean distribution of energy displacement over time is broader than the data distribution over 50 years.

What you need to demonstrate statistically, is that the effects you see fit outside the normal distribution and you must take into account all the effects on the earth to make categorical accurate measurements.

.

No-one can critically claim to know what the mean distribution is. All we can do is speculate that this period of 50 years is significant.

I will give you a personal anecdote to explain my scepticism regarding scientific data and it's significance. This happened around 1992.

I was working in a laboratory producing results for a global pharmaceutical giant. During the analysis, I was producing data that did not fit their predicted mathematical model. Each set of data I produced was rejected until, after 9 attempts, I produced the data that fitted the model. The previous 8 batches of data was deemed insignificant.

It doesn't take Einstein to realise the results used by the client were precise, however they did not accurately represent the distribution of results. I was of course fuming that the client chose what to use and what not to use but they had a deadline and were paying my wages. Ever since that incident I have been wary of results that claim amazing or damning outcomes because they are invariably selective.

So please don't patronise me about accepting that warming is happening before you'll talk science with e. I clearly know what I'm talking about where you clearly don't.