Since Redneck's aren't statisticians or logicians in the formal sense, all I can do is question the "common sense" in assuming something is "normal" and negligible when from the looks of it the formal statisticians and logicians seem to have underestimated the potential impact by a factor of 5.
Dr. Pratt does seem to be more impressed with the Pacific Decadal Oscillations (PDO) because that has a larger swing so by his logic it can have more impact. The PDO is based on how North Western Pacific fish stocks respond to climate oscillations which varies more in the North Western Pacific than it the whole northern Pacific. Same basin range of fluctuation just a different region picked out for different fish. If he looked at the entire northern oceans from 20N to 70N he would find that the whole shebang fluctuates pseudo-cyclicly.
I used both axis to highlight things with this one for the northern oceans. It has been noted that the northern hemisphere with a larger percentage of land tends to amplify temperature changes which some seem to think indicates that it's "worse than it looks" because they assume they know what "normal" is supposed to be pretty much like they assume that defined oscillations mean more than they are supposed to mean.
I have to admit though that thanks to Dr. Pratt and Greg Goodman I now know how to smooth the crap out of any time series.