I suspect you fall prey to a question of scope. I imagine you spend more time with statisticians than, say, paleoceanographers and geologists. They might say, and reasonably so, that my reference to the ten year "break" in alleged global warming is irrelevant (as you say it is) and that your reference to a purely centurial warming trend is just as irrelevant. They might then accuse you of failing to understand variance and of having failed high school mathematics.
Ironically I'd say the whole point is that you are failing to look at the scope.
I didn't reference centurial anything - I said that thinking it's a problem is not understanding variance. Climate scientists not only agree with me they say the same thing.
So at this point either put up some actual science or just stop JAQing off.