The New York Times rolled out Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, CO. Tremberth told them that "the global climate will continue to be influenced in any particular decade by a mix of natural variability and the building greenhouse effect" and that "a cool phase does not mean the overall theory of dangerous human-driven warming is flawed."

And then added what appears to be the latest greenie talking point:

"Too many think global warming means monotonic relentless warming everywhere year after year. It does not happen that way."

Is anyone else noticing a trend developing here, beyond the "we never said that warming patterns would be steady" shuffle? Each explanation, whether by Willis, Keenlyside and Latif, Wood, or Trenberth implies that some climate forces natural are more formidable than those anthropogenic.

ya know, it gets warmer here between january and july every year, despite the fact that it cools off every single evening. i don't know why that's a mind boggling concept all of a sudden. if the fact that the temperature drops every day at nightfall wasn't important enough to convince you that there's no overall warming trend, why would a pause of a decade convince you?

oh, also, shouldn't the effect of the sun be seen anywhere else in the solar system? Oh, yeah, I know "mars has global warming!!!"
so that's two objects out of dozens. by random chance, if the sun weren't doing anything, half wouldd be warming, half would be cooling.
for instance, doesn't the moon get heated by the same sun as we do? why isn't it affected by all this solar input?