Photo by David K.

It pretty well makes the point.

Hmmm, and still some deny.

Thanks for posting this. I wish the newspapers would include it sometimes when they report on climate change. Having worked in the environmental management area, I've been seeing charts like this since the early 1990s, but a lot of people have not yet seen the data presented visually like this.

Try correlating the temperature differences based upon the cover coating for the meteorological stations. Recent experiments have shown that stations left unpainted (1890-1930), those painted with oil-based paint (1930-1960), and those painted with latex-based paint (1960-present) show the same difference in temperature range as the supposed "proof" of climate change. By the way, they have stopped referring to it as "global warming" and started calling it "climate change" because they are unsure of what is happening. But, no matter what you call it, it brings in grant and research money and is politically popular. This too will pass, as did the ozone layer (a natural sunspot related phenomena), SARS, and other flash-in-the-pan issues.

(I have only worked in this field for 35 years. I probably need more experience with interpreting what is happening.}

By the way, they have stopped referring to it as "global warming" and started calling it "climate change" because they are unsure of what is happening.

As Kay Vee below notes, that isn't really true. Climate change incorporates the full spectrum of effects. Mean global warming is just one metric, and not a particularly comprehensive one. Add to that the changes in ice shelf dynamics, glaciers, atmospheric chemistry, oceanic currents, heat exchange, CO2 cycling between all compartments, impacts of deforestation, etc. and you get something that just simply isn't covered by the one term "global warming."

Note also in my response to Kay Vee's comment below the denialist influence on the use of terms.

Sorry, Charlie - both Verie and I have extensive professional expertise in the area as well. Credentialism doesn't trump the facts. They started calling it global climate change because the changes include things like rainfall and drought patterns, changes in distribution and strength of catastrophic weather events and others as well as mere 'warming'.

There is an element of denialist spin to the climate change nomenclature as well. In a strategy document written by a long-time industry public relations lobbyist, it specifically says that denialists should refer to this as "climate change" because it sounds like it isn't much different than daily changes in the weather. Those darn denialists are professional lobbyists whose job it is to manipulate the public, and they have a long history of doing exactly that.

Source documentation please (which is a hard concept I understand for the "warmers" to abide by)- otherwise this is worse than propaganda.

The data are the official time series from NASA. As the graph shows, this one is the global temperature change measured by weather stations. There are other data, for example, the global weather change as measured by satellite, which show the exact same pattern.

Here's the source if you want to read it.

Sato, Makiko. (2009, March). GISS surface temperature analysis: Graphs. Data @ NASA GISS. NASA Website
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

I do find it interesting that you suggest actual data are "propaganda" but stuff taken off a blog, that got it from a known right wing newspaper are somehow more reliable to you.

Especially since the video shows exactly how the denialists have intentionally ignored almost all the data and cherry picked specifically the only date that would give them the downward curve that they wanted to achieve. Any other date would have given the actual direction of the trend, which is continuing warming.

But even there, as you yourself said, looking at one decade and ignoring all the rest of the data that makes up the graph above isn't science, it is denialist propaganda.

The point here, of course, is that the global mean temperature has been increasing dramatically since about the 1970s, and in fact for most of over a century.

thank you for sharing