If I understand the counter-argument correctly, when the data shows a day's worth of weather, it's too small to mean anything. When it shows a month's weather, it's still to small to mean anything. When it shows a year, same deal.

Now I believe the wisdom is that when the data shows a decade of weather trends, it is also too small to draw conclusions. If the article is true and most of the last decade has canceled out the small increase over the last century, then perhaps the same "wisdom" is true at the century level as well -- 100 years of data for naught. To me this seems a little strange since we only have large-scale climate readings for the last 100 years or so. Past that it's sparse readings, interpolations and projections.

The next five years or so will be interesting. If it shows a continued cooling, and if global warming proponents continue to promote their case, I will be curious as to what we mean when we say "climate" -- because I must be missing something.