Mueller's statement was incorrect because of precisely the issue presented in that first "skeptics versus realists" graph I posted: 10 or 15 years is not long enough to achieve a statistically significant discrimination between short-term and long-term temperature trends (that requires around 30 years).
That's why by cherry picking the data (as in the skeptic example in that graph) you can demonstrate that for a decade or so there have been numerous periods when the temperature trend for that period was downwards - even though the longer term trend has clearly been upwards.
So Curry is correct: the recent downward trend absolutely cannot be used to indicate that "global warming has not stopped", just as the same data cannot be used to demonstrate that "global warming has stopped".
Thus Curry's comment that Murry's comment "detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’
So where does that leave us?
What the latest "skeptical" analysis does do is increase our confidence that previous global temperature reconstructions were reasonably accurate - that even when she bring more powerful statistical tools and careful reanalysis to questions such as siting induced errors there has been a substantial increase in global temperatures, prior to 1990.
WHY this happened is a separate question.
How about going back 160 years and using data which has not been " adjusted". A couple of rather interesting graphs from New Zealand which of all places one would suppose would need very little adjustment as it's surrounded by the Pacific Ocean and has little atmospheric pollution to speak of yet still has the same CO2 density as the rest of the planet.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/09/new-zealands-niwa-temperature-train-wreck/,/a>
Not when all these studies source the same data set. All you have done is confirm that they analyzed the data correctly. Not that the data was valid in the first place. And any data that does not show the 1970's as cold, is highly suspect.
The earth is approximately 4 billion years old, and there have been temperature fluctuations throughout. If 30 years is more statistically significant than 10-15 years, how about 100 years, or 1000 years?
It seems that people tend to draw the envelope in a way that supports their argument.