I've finally got a meaningful response from Jonathan and I've replied on his blog:

Jonathan:
"But if you want error bars, the most recent 9pm analysis from 1960 onwards suggests a 0.0046 degree ceclius increase per year +/- 0.0076 which is statistically insignificant."

Count Iblis:
Ok, let's work with this figure. You are 95% sure that any trend is between (0.0046 +/- 0.0076)?C/year = (0.46 +/- 0.76)?C/century.

(Actually, you cannot strictly say 95% sure, for that you must assme a uniform prior on the possible trends.)

The figure given by climate scientists for the temperature increase in the last 100 year lies within your bound.

That's why your analysis is not relevant. It's simply not accurate enough to see the signal claimed by climate scientists.

You can always assume a null hypothesis that says that there is no change, do an analysis that can only yield a significant result rejecting that hypothesis if you have a huge effect and then claim that just because that isn't the case, the null hypothesis is not overruled.

The null hypothesis is already overruled by more accurate research involving many thousands of weather stations and satellite data.