If you spent as much breath addressing the real concerns of Naturo-Genic Global Warmers, instead of calling us names, setting up straw men and ranting about "the media", maybe AGW could garner more support.

As it is, you simply lower the price on the Kool-Aid, hoping for more business.

If you spent as much breath addressing the real concerns of Naturo-Genic Global Warmers

And those real concerns would be...?

It seems that no amount of data can actually change the opinion of the green opinionated so we'll keep this light and to the point

I fully understand why spreaders of climate disinformation have hyped up a (sort-of) cold January as if it somehow provided scientific evidence to support their campaign to undermine the well-established scientific understanding of human-caused climate change.

Of course, it isn't possible for dedicated smear artists at Grist to actually truthfully articulate the arguments of their opponents. Its a toss-up whether they're either too stupid to work them out or they just enjoy malevolently erecting towering straw men that fall on the slightest breath of hot air for yet another easy win in front of their acolytes.

In this case, I don't recall a single commentator claiming that this past winter which was severe in the Northern Hemisphere was in itself evidence of anything.

In point of fact, the actual argument was pointing out that over the course of one calendar year, all four global temperature indices recorded large falls - the two most complete and accurate (the satellites) recording a cooling equal to the entire supposed rise during the 20th Century.

If the fall is natural (and we've yet to hear any squealing to the contrary) then that means that a) the rise is within the natural variability of climate and b) the climate models fail YET AGAIN to predict even the next year let alone pretend the next 50 or 100. Something is rotten in GCM-land.

So what to do? Gristmill drags out the most inaccurate, unaudited and frankly false reconstruction of the 20th Century (by the wretched Hansen, no less) to try and give "context" to this fall. Except of course, that the fall isn't being recorded in Hansen's data because Hansen keeps mysteriously fucking about with the data with mysterious positive and negative adjustments. Its not that the early 21st Century is getting warmer, its that the early 20th Century (with that troublesome 1930s warming that had nothing to do with greenhouse gases) keeps getting colder after the fact thanks to those mysterious adjustments.

You'd think that someone, somewhere would like to know why Hansen keeps screwing around with the data, but after all since Hansen only takes money from mysterious financial engineers like Soros and the charitable trusts controlled by the wives of Democratic candidates that Hansen then endorses, his hands are clean and his data is pure.

All you see from Gristmill is yet more Real Climate Change Denial. Nothing to see here - move along.

I think the distinction is between climate and weather.  Most climactic averages are 30 years, so little spikes here and there are dampened by overall trends.  Simple stuff.

If you look at departure from climactic averages, the northern tier of the US has been cooler and the south warmed, the opposite of last year at this time.  This is a reason why this year we're seeing more F3 and higher tornadoes - 2008 is already starting off with a record (although as noted by Dr. Jeff Masters, our ability to detect them is much better than in the past, a real confounder).  Cold air against a plume of warm Gulf air and there you have it.  Simple stuff.

Don't get bogged down with infinite details or you'll lose all meaning.  Of course, being scientists, the details are what they love to study, such as micro-climate effects modeled with super-computers.  But it makes no sense to say "Oops, getting colder in Grand Wazoo, Michigan, see I told ya Climate Change was a crock!"

Onward through the fog

You will find any number of people claiming that this past winter is evidence that the climate models are wrong.
The satellite analyses are, between themselves, contradictory, with rates of warming that differ by ~25%.  The RSS analysis excludes virtually all of Antarctica and is therefore not "complete."
Look at JohnV's graph again.
Hansen didn't take money from Soros.
Hansen accepted an award 14 years after his first Congressional testimony from the widow of Republican John Heinz who supported Hansen and considered climate change an important issue.
Hansen endorsed John Kerry because there is no way he was going to endorse Bush.