Global warming has been stopped for 16 years. Why do some say it is a 1 year trend?

[the optimist]

When you say arctic ice is increasing, do you mean the Antarctic ice is increasing?
http://www.dw.de/polar-ice-sheets-meltin...a-16432199
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...vironment/
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/new...43485.aspx

[hype and blame]

liberals ran out of stupid people to victimize so they're going after planets now......

[Common Sense]

Because morons believe anything they say.

[thankfuldinner545]

1972(ish) was the coldest since reasonably modern technology has been used to gather data.
By 1988(1), 16 years of temperature data - rising from the COLDEST year in modern record - was said to be PROOF of a long-term trend.
NOW, the EXACT SAME PEOPLE(2) claim 16 years is totally without significance; being WAY TOO SHORT to be meaningful.

In other words, roughly 100% of the "AGW" proponents claim THEMSELVES to be insane, retarded or dishonest. This is no surprise since they also quite literally claim cause FOLLOWS effect(3), that statistically insignificant correlation(4) proves cause and that correlation of nearly 1.0(5) is meaningless.

(1) 1988 marks the IPCC's initial claims of proved doom.
(2) The IPCC
(3) To the degree any correlation exists between warming and increased CO2, on average the CO2 increase FOLLOWS the warming.
(4) That correlation is less than r=0.1, the accepted threshold for not assuming randomness
(5) A very nearly PERFECT match, as exists between temperature and solar output

[Cephalopod]

Because your " example" is a 1 year example, not a long trend!!

Let me explain by some simple mathematics, the original shelf is 100%, it loses 60% over a period if years, thus it leaves only 40% but in one. Year it increases by 60%, but 60% of 40% is only 24% so its only 64% of its original quantity.
That's why this one single element doesn't explain the far more complex Climate change!

I'm going with the vast majority of science, like NASA and the Royal Society than the plebs from the DM.

Don't you think it's strange that those against CC are almost entirely NOT scientists??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...ate_change
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Please don't ention research grants, those who go on about them have plainly Never applied for a grant! From SeRC or NERC in the UK. And no, you don't need government grants, I'm a Mathmatician and I have NEVER had to mention CC in an application, what a stupid lie!

Finally to the bull about " liberals", this is Science is doesnt do conservative/ liberal it just does Science, and what did the Scientists Margaret Thatcher think??
http://grist.org/climate-energy/how-that...te-action/

"A year before, she shocked the U.N. general assembly in New York by issuing a challenge: “The evidence is there. The damage is being done. What do we, the international community, do about it?” The news story in the New York Times ran with the headline: “Thatcher Urges Pact On Climate.” She called for the U.N. to ratify a treaty by … 1992."
She's hardly a liberal!!