What does it say about a denier who believes CRU data, but ignores it as as it proves AGW stopped?

Even Phil Jones has stated that since 2002 we have had slight cooling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670....

When "deniers" made the same claim, we were accused of being liars. So I posted this question as proof that the scientific community has accepted the fact that temperatures have stopped their upward trend, (even if they claim it is temporary and will resume) and that the only one who denies this fact are the fanboys on this forum. They still can not accept this fact and attacked the CRU data.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgZb3...

Notice also that they ignored the question, that even if we continue to warm, but at the half or 1/3 the rate the IPCC projects, if that would negate the AGW hypothesis. They did not want to go on record making such a claim.

Not correct.

You can ONLY make that statement by starting with the very unusual year of 1998. The one that stands out on your graph as an "outlier", a highly unusual year. If you start with 1997, 1999, or 2000, the rate of warming has been "alarming".

This is known in science as "cherrypicking" the data, and it's a sign that the person has no good scientific argument.

If you look at data on the EFFECTS of warming; Arctic ice melting, sea levels rising, earlier Springs, species migrations, etc., you can see how utterly absurd this argument is.

There's a reason this isn't front page news, and it's not a "media conspiracy". The argument is perhaps the least credible of the denier arguments.

I am the first person to say that this is very difficult stuff to understand. When I see data to support your assertion - reported not just once but observed, reported & validated by a number of respected scientists - I will be the first one to breathe a HUGE sigh of relief whilst publicly, joyfully proclaiming that AGW is no longer a threat. Even though I would sleep a lot better if the reverse were true; to date, evidence I have seen points to the contrary. :o(

I guess since you believe the data coming from CRU, then you believe in man has an affect on temperature.

I bet you think that since Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker were shown to be frauds then all of Christianity must be false?