Douglas. What you seem to miss is the fact that when you CAN detect temperature rise in the ocean it will all be too late. The worlds ice reserves are melting. Latent heat of freezing and melting means that the biosphere is absorbing large quantities of thermal energy without actually increasing the temperature. Shipping is now able to utilise the North East and the North West passages for many more months of the year due to the melting of sea ice.

So rather than worry about your basic education in statistics, exercise your basic education in physics and consider the situation that will occur when all of the ice has melted and there is nothing left to stabilise the earth's temperature.

Measuring the temperature before all the ice is gone isn't going to give you the whole picture. In the end, it is simply in our own interests to conserve the fragile environment that we enjoy. Nature always wins. It doesn't matter to anyone except the creatures of this planet if the temperature reaches 500 degC or -150 degC. The universe will continue for long after we are all gone.

Those who accept our responsibility to look after our environment are the conservatives, while those who would throw it all away are the radicals.
===================
As to the comment from John McLean, denialist have always been around.
Remember the Flat Earth mob? And those who refused to accept that the earth WAS NOT the centre of the universe, regardless of what was "written"?

Proclaiming that there is "not one credible shred of scientific evidence" does not make it so. There is evidence from many sources if you have the integrity and the qualifications, including technical knowledge and unbiased mind, to be able to understand it.

There will always be those who can't understand why the world isn't flat and will question whether or not man did really land on the moon. Just as some people continue to believe in miracles and the tooth fairly.

Remebmer that LaNina conditions brings cool water to the surface, and that the 2000 - 2010 decade was hotter than the 1990's decade.

Hypothetical question John, if the world records a new record high temperature this decade, would that disprove out the 60 year cycle theory? Or perhaps would you concede that man made CO2 emissions are infact a significant force that have overpowered the 60 year cycle?

I am actually interested in the 60 year theory, but ill admit now ill never subscribe to it as i am happy to accept the findings of the CSIRO.

Your interpretation of the data is wrong.

Uhh actually thats not what he's arguing. I suggest you read the first paragraph again.

Well the free bus might be heading over a climate cliff if CO2 were the driver, but all observational evidence to date tells us that CO2 is not a driver but a relatively weak passenger in climate changes.

The analogy was too good to resist.

The default assumption (and null hypothesis of AGW) is that climate change continues to be almost entirely natural and that industrial CO2 has a real but small greenhouse effect which increases only linearly even in the face of exponentially rising emissions.

Anyone who believes in the entirely new geological phenomenon of impending AGW catastrophe needs to show that the numbers add up to the size of the effect they are claiming, and nobody has ever done this. There is not a shred of observational evidence for their alarm.

By contrast, 250 million years ago when Earth had CO2 at over 4 times today's levels the earth was in a colder period. Around 500 million years ago CO2 was as high as 20 times current levels, perhaps 7000ppm. (See Rothman 2002 <http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full.pdf>; and also Berner 1990 <http://www.co2science.org/subject/questions/1998/historic_co2.php>; )
I'll take it as self-evident that none of this high CO2 was enough to be a significant warmer, let alone a catastrophe. But don't just take my word for it. Based on plant stomata as a CO2 proxy ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/B26341.1 ) one scientist comments "The magnitude of the coming anthropogenic greenhouse pales in comparison with past greenhouse spikes at times of global mass extinctions."

The Vostok ice core showing a slow 40ppm drop in CO2 between 115k and 105k years ago from 270ppm to 230pppm with no detectable effect on temperature also suggests a 90ppm rise starting from 300ppm would have only a very small effect, remembering the response is logarithmic.

If it's not CO2 causing all or most of the recent warming, then what is it? This is the question that deserves more research and nobody has all the answers yet. As one example, take cloud albedo. It has been calculated by Lindzen that a 3% decrease in global average cloud cover would hypothetically lead to 75% of the warming that was observed in the 20th century, yet as recently as 2008 the IPCC did not include such things as obvious as cloud response in any of their 12 models of climate change. Yet the IPCC was content to hush the errors and uncertainties reported by their own contributing scientists and continue to peddle their alarmist policy advice to world governments as though it were infallible.

And no, the last decade of global ocean cooling is not statistically significant enough to be the end of global warming, but it is significant that the models predicting catastrophe did not predict the cooling. ( http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/update-on-a-comparison-of-upper-ocean-heat-content-changes-with-the-giss-model-predictions/ )

To conclude that industrial CO2 is a strong driver of present climate simply due to a recent correlation, and when insufficient effort is spent modelling the full range of natural climate drivers, is a logical fallacy. To conclude some sort of catastrophe is imminent from a tripling or quadrupling of CO2 is to ignore the evidence of CO2 being a minor influence in past climate change even at 2000ppm concentrations with all real feedbacks included.

Ring the bell, because the alarmist bus is the bus you don't want to be on when it crashes.

Mr Cotton you are getting very tedious and make people tired of reading your post. Although I am inclined to believe that there are gravitational forces by the planets which affect the sun and the climate however even if your theory of the 60 years cycle and the 900 years cycle is proven to be true it does not disprove the theory of anthropogenic warming caused by CO2.

Many of the arguments you have put forward are wrong and easily be dismantled like one of your quote that nature has a way of healing itself, and your political statement that you have proven the theory wrong and the climate is due to nature we cannot do anything about if and leave it to god, as well as if we stop using fossil fuel it will only make it cheaper for poorer countries to use more of it and nothing can be achieved. Then you keep ignoring other people's point when they point out to graph of NASA showing temperature rise in the last ten years or so in reply to your statement about the temperature has been dropping or stable since 2002; as well as saying you don't care where your source of reference came from when people pointed out the flaws and untrustworthiness of the source as they were funded by oil or power companies but it is ok for you to criticise the ICCP as being disingenuous and not include the 60 year data cycle.

I don't have the time to go into detailed argument with you. But consider one thing have people power bill or petrol receipt been going up or down? They've been going up because fossil fuel price go up as it is a depleting resource. Country like Canada enjoy very cheap electricity because they use Hydro. It's been estimated that Australia's current energy need can be supplied by Solar thermal power plant of radius of something like 50 km, I am writing from memory I won't bother to reference them because I think all you need is to get the gist of my argument and if you can't get it then it is a waste of time to; then consider new technology that harness wave power not only could power desalination plant but could provide 3.5 times the power need of the coastal area. Long term projection for cost of fossil fuel is upward while that for renewable energy is downward.

If we can just leave it to nature to heal itself then how come CO2 atmospheric content has been increasing and does not stay flat and don't give me the bull about it only makes up a tiny percentage of the atmosphere as if it won't have any effect on the eco-system or the climate; yes nature can heal itself and it can throw earthquakes cause famine or flood to reduce the human population first when the ecology or climate is drastically disturbed.

Think about it this way in nature the earth evolutionary process is very slow. We are in a holocene period (as pointed out by one professor if you bothered to read what he said) which means the temperature is meant to be decreasing. Lets say the earth takes 1000 years to drop 2 degrees for the species to have the time to evolve and adapt to change. Now with human emissions' interference at the conservative estimate of 0.5 degree per century will make it 5 degree in 1000 years plus the other 2 degrees equal 7 degrees; that's 7 degrees in the opposite direction which is way to fast for the evolutionary process on earth (think in terms of earth's time not human time. Your reference to the article from newswise you forgot to read this part:

Battisti noted that while carbon dioxide-induced climate change is unlikely to be abrupt, the impacts of changing climate could be.
“When you lose a keystone species, ecosystems can change very rapidly,” he said. “Smoothly retreating sea ice will cause fast warming if you live within a thousand kilometers of the ice. If warming slowly dries already semi-arid places, fires are going to be more likely.”

People are not trying to change the climate as you told them not to, they are trying to stop the impact that human emission can have on not just the climate but the ecology as well. The fact that CO2 has been rising gives me 50% confidence that there will be an effect, the fact that scientist can demonstrate the CO2 trap heat in a close system or experiment give me 25% per cent. Now the missing 25% is the other many variables in the open earth system which may also have to include your theory about the 60 cosmic cycle as well.

Now for all intend and purposes let's say yes your hypothesis can or will be proven true and there is a 60 climate cycle that does not mean the CO2 level has stopped increasing and has no effect on the ecology or the climate. There is a law of cause and effect, you use it to justify your 60 years cycle because of the sun and planets but you choose to ignore the fact that CO2 level is increasing and it somehow have no effect or very insignificant.

Now your graph of about 120 year showing two segments of 60 years of relatively similar temperature pattern (I will not that the long term trend is upward while it is meant to be downward as we are in the holocene age). You have managed to spot one correlation and you suddenly dismiss many others who have spend years of work on it while claim your thesis is fact. And please don't tell me the scientists are on the gravy train. We can question their motive if they are sponsored by green power corporation but scientists have been working under both Liberal and Labor governments have recorded in the past thirty five years at least at one of their studies in Tasmania showing increase in CO2 atmospheric content. It would be easier for the government to have scientists finding that AGW is untrue so they won't have to face the political battle to try to legislate reform.

You know at first I thought you have something interesting to say I and read your post and have an open mind to learn. But the more I've read yours and others who have been trying to dismiss the theory the more I am turned off to the point that I don't want to read any of you any more. And if you genuinely believe in the 60 years cycle without any other ulterior motive then try to pursue it there may be something there to investigate I am open minded on that theory. Sorry, I don't have time to dispute more of your economic theory but it won't matter. Good luck!