And now brace yourself for an ice age
DAVID ROSE: The mini ice age starts here | Mail OnlineI know I know it's the daily mail and global warming believers will use this detail as a way of dismissing the whole thing probably but hey ho... As a country we are on the same latitude as Canada, and Moscow, and yet we never have winters as cold and icy as them. This is because of the Gulf Stream, which keeps our climate relatively warm and mild. Occasionally, the gulf stream misses us, and we experience colder weather spells. But none of this has anything to do with global warming. Except that the Gulf Stream itself is largely a product of the weather. Climate change could disrupt the factors which keep it going, and if that happens then the UK's climate will cool towards that of Canada. It's seen as a distinct possibility, though not especially likely. That article isn't about the UK in particular but global temperatures as I understand it.
The other thing people don't seem to mention is tree rings data which have been showing cooling for a few years already but "experts" either don't include it in their graphs or just dismiss it.
Trouble is anyone who uses one set of data to explain something as complex as the earth's climate (I don't think anyone truly understands it properly) cannot be taken seriously. And you hear countless "experts" using one or two sets of data, dismissing the ones that don't agree with their arguments. That's not science. I assume you can supply references for all these assertions? What tree ring data? Why is tree ring data better than, say, metereological records for measuring global temperatures over the past few years? Who exactly are you referring to as "anyone who uses one or two sets of data", and "dismissing the ones that don't agree"? How credible are these sets "that don't agree"? What is their provenance?
And as your last point applies at least equally to both sides of the argument (not that I necessarily agree with it anyway), I'm not even sure what you are trying to say. Absolutely agree. IMO, it's all back to front. Start with a theory then seek out any data which supports that theory. Any data which does not support the theory is either ignored or dismissed as "denialist propaganda".
IMO, there is just too much bias (on both sides of the debate). I have always maintained that skeptisism is a healthy attitude (even Einstein had the decency to say that "It doesn't matter how many Scientists agree, it only takes one to prove me wrong") yet because, I try to keep an open mind and am open to new ideas, I am seen in the same light as a "denialist" by those who hold an unshakeable belief in their pet theory.
Oh well, each to their own religion I suppose. I'll remain an agnostic. From 1960 onwards the tree rings samples used to produce the Mann, Bradley and Hughes historical temperature graph (hockey stick one) has shown cooling.
This extract from a Telegraph article explain it better than I can:
Full article here: Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world' - Telegraph
As the who I'm referring to, you quoted it: "anyone who uses one or two sets of data". I didn't have anyone in mind, my point was that if you use only a fraction of the data that would have an effect on the earth's climate, then your research is useless.
For the dismissing what doesn't fit the argument, see above. Like shooting fish in a barrel:
Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
If you're going to post something, at least do some research first, otherwise you look like an idiot. But you've just quoted a blog. This appears to be a cardinal sin as it's not a peer reviewed paper. At least that's the argument usually presented on here when those of us who are less convinced about the AGW post something from a blog. Well what a surprise, a climate change believer calling someone name for daring not to submit without questions to the new religion! It's common trend so I won't take it personally. 
I don't need to do research to see that as long as the data fitted their argument, tree rings were fine to use. Now it doesn't, ah well just rubbish them.
However the link you sent, in trying to rubbish tree ring data as not reliable "anymore" is basically explaining how more CO2 makes plants more resistant to drought and grow better, right?
Yet the data since 1960 says that the tree rings are saying it's getting cooler (in other terms, the rings aren't as thick as before).
So basically there's more and more CO2 in the air but trees aren't growing well going against what your link says they should be doing.
Now if you want to tell me I misunderstood something feel free to do so but keep your name calling for the playground.