No global warming at all for 18 years 9 months – a new record – The Pause lengthens again – just in time for UN Summit in Paris

Special To Climate Depot

The Pause lengthens again – just in time for Paris

No global warming at all for 18 years 9 months – a new record

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

As the faithful gather around their capering shamans in Paris for the New Superstition’s annual festival of worship, the Pause lengthens yet again. One-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since February 1997. Yet the 225 months since then show no global warming at all (Fig. 1). With this month’s RSS temperature record, the Pause beats last month’s record and now stands at 18 years 9 months.

Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 9 months since February 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings have occurred during the period of the Pause.

The accidental delegate from Burma provoked shrieks of fury from the congregation during the final benediction in Doha three years ago, when he said the Pause had endured for 16 years. Now, almost three years later, the Pause is almost three years longer.

It is worth understanding just how surprised the modelers ought to be by the persistence of the Pause. NOAA, in a very rare fit of honesty, admitted in its 2008 State of the Climate report that 15 years or more without global warming would demonstrate a discrepancy between prediction and observation. The reason for NOAA’s statement is that there is supposed to be a sharp and significant instantaneous response to a radiative forcing such as adding CO2 to the air.

The steepness of this predicted response can be seen in Fig. 1a, which is based on a paper on temperature feedbacks by Professor Richard Lindzen’s former student Professor Gerard Roe in 2009. The graph of Roe’s model output shows that the initial expected response to a forcing is supposed to be an immediate and rapid warming. But, despite the very substantial forcings in the 18 years 9 months since February 1997, not a flicker of warming has resulted.

Figure 1a: Models predict rapid initial warming in response to a forcing. Instead, no warming at all is occurring. Based on Roe (2009).

At the Heartland and Philip Foster events in Paris, I shall reveal in detail the three serious errors that have led the models to over-predict warming so grossly.

The current el Niño, as Bob Tisdale’s distinguished series of reports here demonstrates, is at least as big as the Great el Niño of 1998. The RSS temperature record is beginning to reflect its magnitude.

From next month on, the Pause will probably shorten dramatically and may disappear altogether for a time. However, if there is a following la Niña, as there often is, the Pause may return at some time from the end of next year onward.

The hiatus period of 18 years 9 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend. The start date is not cherry-picked: it is calculated. And the graph does not mean there is no such thing as global warming. Going back further shows a small warming rate.

And yes, the start-date for the Pause has been inching forward, though just a little more slowly than the end-date, which is why the Pause continues on average to lengthen.

So long a stasis in global temperature is simply inconsistent not only with the extremist predictions of the computer models but also with the panic whipped up by the rent-seeking profiteers of doom rubbing their hands with glee in Paris.

The UAH dataset shows a Pause almost as long as the RSS dataset. However, the much-altered surface tamperature datasets show a small warming rate (Fig. 1b).

Figure 1b. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC terrestrial monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly datasets shows global warming at a rate equivalent to 1.1 C° per century during the period of the Pause from January 1997 to September 2015.

Bearing in mind that one-third of the 2.4 W m–2 radiative forcing from all manmade sources since 1750 has occurred during the period of the Pause, a warming rate equivalent to little more than 1 C°/century is not exactly alarming.

As always, a note of caution. Merely because there has been little or no warming in recent decades, one may not draw the conclusion that warming has ended forever. The trend lines measure what has occurred: they do not predict what will occur.

The Pause – politically useful though it may be to all who wish that the “official” scientific community would remember its duty of skepticism – is far less important than the growing discrepancy between the predictions of the general-circulation models and observed reality.

The divergence between the models’ predictions in 1990 (Fig. 2) and 2005 (Fig. 3), on the one hand, and the observed outturn, on the other, continues to widen. If the Pause lengthens just a little more, the rate of warming in the quarter-century since the IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990 will fall below 1 C°/century equivalent.

Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century, made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), for the 309 months January 1990 to September 2015 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at just 1.02 K/century equivalent, taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH v.6 satellite monthly mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to September 2015, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the near-zero observed anomalies (dark blue) and real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH v.6 satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

As ever, the Technical Note explains the sources of the IPCC’s predictions in 1990 and in 2005, and also demonstrates that that according to the ARGO bathythermograph data the oceans are warming at a rate equivalent to less than a quarter of a Celsius degree per century. In a rational scientific discourse, those who had advocated extreme measures to prevent global warming would now be withdrawing and calmly rethinking their hypotheses. However, this is not a rational scientific discourse. On the questioners’ side it is rational: on the believers’ side it is a matter of increasingly blind faith. The New Superstition is no fides quaerens intellectum.

Key facts about global temperature

These facts should be shown to anyone who persists in believing that, in the words of Mr Obama’s Twitteratus, “global warming is real, manmade and dangerous”.

  • The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 225 months from February 1997 to Octber 2015 – more than half the 442-month satellite record.
  • There has been no warming even though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred since the Pause began in February 1997.
  • The entire RSS dataset for the 442 months December 1978 to September 2015 shows global warming at an unalarming rate equivalent to just 1.13 Cº per century.
  • Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.
  • The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.75 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
  • The fastest warming rate lasting 15 years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
  • Compare the warming on the Central England temperature dataset in the 40 years 1694-1733, well before the Industrial Revolution, equivalent to 4.33 C°/century.
  • In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.
  • The warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1 Cº per century. The IPCC had predicted close to thrice as much.
  • To meet the IPCC’s central prediction of 1 C° warming from 1990-2025, in the next decade a warming of 0.75 C°, equivalent to 7.5 C°/century, would have to occur.
  • Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.
  • The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than 15 years that has been measured since 1950.
  • The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
  • The oceans, according to the 3600+ ARGO buoys, are warming at a rate of just 0.02 Cº per decade, equivalent to 0.23 Cº per century, or 1 C° in 430 years.
  • Recent extreme-weather events cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming to speak of. It is as simple as that.

Technical note

Our latest topical graph shows the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere dataset for as far back as it is possible to go and still find a zero trend. The start-date is not “cherry-picked” so as to coincide with the temperature spike caused by the 1998 el Niño. Instead, it is calculated so as to find the longest period with a zero trend.

The fact of a long Pause is an indication of the widening discrepancy between prediction and reality in the temperature record.

The satellite datasets are arguably less unreliable than other datasets in that they show the 1998 Great El Niño more clearly than all other datasets. The Great el Niño, like its two predecessors in the past 300 years, caused widespread global coral bleaching, providing an independent verification that the satellite datasets are better able than the rest to capture such fluctuations without artificially filtering them out.

Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on reference measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which provide an independent verification of the temperature measurements by checking via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.

The RSS graph (Fig. 1) is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.

The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line.

The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression, since summer temperatures in one hemisphere are compensated by winter in the other. Therefore, an AR(n) model would generate results little different from a least-squares trend.

Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.

RSS itself is now taking a serious interest in the length of the Great Pause. Dr Carl Mears, the senior research scientist at RSS, discusses it at remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures.

Dr Mears’ results are summarized in Fig. T1:

Figure T1. Output of 33 IPCC models (turquoise) compared with measured RSS global temperature change (black), 1979-2014. The transient coolings caused by the volcanic eruptions of Chichón (1983) and Pinatubo (1991) are shown, as is the spike in warming caused by the great el Niño of 1998.

Dr Mears writes:

“The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation.  This leads them to conclude, very likely erroneously, that the long-term sensitivity of the climate is much less than is currently thought.”

Dr Mears concedes the growing discrepancy between the RSS data and the models, but he alleges “cherry-picking” of the start-date for the global-temperature graph:

“Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out that there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades.  Because of this, we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of ‘I saw this plot on a denialist web site.  Is this really your data?’  While some of these reports have ‘cherry-picked’ their end points to make their evidence seem even stronger, there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate.  … The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.”

In fact, the spike in temperatures caused by the Great el Niño of 1998 is almost entirely offset in the linear-trend calculation by two factors: the not dissimilar spike of the 2010 el Niño, and the sheer length of the Great Pause itself. The headline graph in these monthly reports begins in 1997 because that is as far back as one can go in the data and still obtain a zero trend.

Fig. T1a. Graphs for RSS and GISS temperatures starting both in 1997 and in 2001. For each dataset the trend-lines are near-identical, showing conclusively that the argument that the Pause was caused by the 1998 el Nino is false (Werner Brozek and Professor Brown worked out this neat demonstration).

Curiously, Dr Mears prefers the terrestrial datasets to the satellite datasets. The UK Met Office, however, uses the satellite data to calibrate its own terrestrial record.

The length of the Pause, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.

Sources of the IPCC projections in Figs. 2 and 3

IPCC’s First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:

“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”

That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. For the rate of global warming since 1990 – the most important of the “broad-scale features of climate change” that the models were supposed to predict – is now below half what the IPCC had then predicted.

In 1990, the IPCC said this:

“Based on current models we predict:

“under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3 Cº per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 Cº to 0.5 Cº per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1 Cº above the present value by 2025 and 3 Cº before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors” (p. xii).

Later, the IPCC said:

“The numbers given below are based on high-resolution models, scaled to be consistent with our best estimate of global mean warming of 1.8 Cº by 2030. For values consistent with other estimates of global temperature rise, the numbers below should be reduced by 30% for the low estimate or increased by 50% for the high estimate” (p. xxiv).

The orange region in Fig. 2 represents the IPCC’s medium-term Scenario-A estimate of near-term warming, i.e. 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] K by 2025.

The IPCC’s predicted global warming over the 25 years from 1990 to the present differs little from a straight line (Fig. T2).

Figure T2. Historical warming from 1850-1990, and predicted warming from 1990-2100 on the IPCC’s “business-as-usual” Scenario A (IPCC, 1990, p. xxii).

Because this difference between a straight line and the slight uptick in the warming rate the IPCC predicted over the period 1990-2025 is so small, one can look at it another way. To reach the 1 K central estimate of warming since 1990 by 2025, there would have to be twice as much warming in the next ten years as there was in the last 25 years. That is not likely.

But is the Pause perhaps caused by the fact that CO2 emissions have not been rising anything like as fast as the IPCC’s “business-as-usual” Scenario A prediction in 1990? No: CO2 emissions have risen rather above the Scenario-A prediction (Fig. T3).

Figure T3. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, etc., in 2012, from Le Quéré et al. (2014), plotted against the chart of “man-made carbon dioxide emissions”, in billions of tonnes of carbon per year, from IPCC (1990).

Plainly, therefore, CO2 emissions since 1990 have proven to be closer to Scenario A than to any other case, because for all the talk about CO2 emissions reduction the fact is that the rate of expansion of fossil-fuel burning in China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, etc., far outstrips the paltry reductions we have achieved in the West to date.

True, methane concentration has not risen as predicted in 1990 (Fig. T4), for methane emissions, though largely uncontrolled, are simply not rising as the models had predicted. Here, too, all of the predictions were extravagantly baseless.

The overall picture is clear. Scenario A is the emissions scenario from 1990 that is closest to the observed CO2 emissions outturn.

Figure T4. Methane concentration as predicted in four IPCC Assessment Reports, together with (in black) the observed outturn, which is running along the bottom of the least prediction. This graph appeared in the pre-final draft of IPCC (2013), but had mysteriously been deleted from the final, published version, inferentially because the IPCC did not want to display such a plain comparison between absurdly exaggerated predictions and unexciting reality.

To be precise, a quarter-century after 1990, the global-warming outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.27 Cº, equivalent to little more than 1 Cº/century. The IPCC’s central estimate of 0.71 Cº, equivalent to 2.8 Cº/century, that was predicted for Scenario A in IPCC (1990) with “substantial confidence” was approaching three times too big. In fact, the outturn is visibly well below even the least estimate.

In 1990, the IPCC’s central prediction of the near-term warming rate was higher by two-thirds than its prediction is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. T5 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.

Is the ocean warming?

One frequently-discussed explanation for the Great Pause is that the coupled ocean-atmosphere system has continued to accumulate heat at approximately the rate predicted by the models, but that in recent decades the heat has been removed from the atmosphere by the ocean and, since globally the near-surface strata show far less warming than the models had predicted, it is hypothesized that what is called the “missing heat” has traveled to the little-measured abyssal strata below 2000 m, whence it may emerge at some future date.

Actually, it is not known whether the ocean is warming: each of the 3600 automated ARGO bathythermograph buoys takes just three measurements a month in 200,000 cubic kilometres of ocean – roughly a 100,000-square-mile box more than 316 km square and 2 km deep. Plainly, the results on the basis of a resolution that sparse (which, as Willis Eschenbach puts it, is approximately the equivalent of trying to take a single temperature and salinity profile taken at a single point in Lake Superior less than once a year) are not going to be a lot better than guesswork.

Unfortunately ARGO seems not to have updated the ocean dataset since December 2014. However, what we have gives us 11 full years of data. Results are plotted in Fig. T5. The ocean warming, if ARGO is right, is equivalent to just 0.02 Cº decade–1, equivalent to 0.2 Cº century–1.

Figure T5. The entire near-global ARGO 2 km ocean temperature dataset from January 2004 to December 2014 (black spline-curve), with the least-squares linear-regression trend calculated from the data by the author (green arrow).

Finally, though the ARGO buoys measure ocean temperature change directly, before publication NOAA craftily converts the temperature change into zettajoules of ocean heat content change, which make the change seem a whole lot larger.

The terrifying-sounding heat content change of 260 ZJ from 1970 to 2014 (Fig. T6) is equivalent to just 0.2 K/century of global warming. All those “Hiroshima bombs of heat” of which the climate-extremist websites speak are a barely discernible pinprick. The ocean and its heat capacity are a lot bigger than some may realize.

Figure T6. Ocean heat content change, 1957-2013, in Zettajoules from NOAA’s NODC Ocean Climate Lab: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT, with the heat content values converted back to the ocean temperature changes in Kelvin that were originally measured. NOAA’s conversion of the minuscule warming data to Zettajoules, combined with the exaggerated vertical aspect of the graph, has the effect of making a very small change in ocean temperature seem considerably more significant than it is.

Converting the ocean heat content change back to temperature change reveals an interesting discrepancy between NOAA’s data and that of the ARGO system. Over the period of ARGO data, from 2004-2014, the NOAA data imply that the oceans are warming at 0.05 Cº decade–1, equivalent to 0.5 Cº century–1, or rather more than double the rate shown by ARGO.

ARGO has the better-resolved dataset, but since the resolutions of all ocean datasets are very low one should treat all these results with caution.

What one can say is that, on such evidence as these datasets are capable of providing, the difference between underlying warming rate of the ocean and that of the atmosphere is not statistically significant, suggesting that if the “missing heat” is hiding in the oceans it has magically found its way into the abyssal strata without managing to warm the upper strata on the way.

On these data, too, there is no evidence of rapid or catastrophic ocean warming.

Furthermore, to date no empirical, theoretical or numerical method, complex or simple, has yet successfully specified mechanistically either how the heat generated by anthropogenic greenhouse-gas enrichment of the atmosphere has reached the deep ocean without much altering the heat content of the intervening near-surface strata or how the heat from the bottom of the ocean may eventually re-emerge to perturb the near-surface climate conditions relevant to land-based life on Earth.

Figure T7. Near-global ocean temperatures by stratum, 0-1900 m, providing a visual reality check to show just how little the upper strata are affected by minor changes in global air surface temperature. Source: ARGO marine atlas.

Most ocean models used in performing coupled general-circulation model sensitivity runs simply cannot resolve most of the physical processes relevant for capturing heat uptake by the deep ocean.

Ultimately, the second law of thermodynamics requires that any heat which may have accumulated in the deep ocean will dissipate via various diffusive processes. It is not plausible that any heat taken up by the deep ocean will suddenly warm the upper ocean and, via the upper ocean, the atmosphere.

If the “deep heat” explanation for the Pause were correct (and it is merely one among dozens that have been offered), the complex models have failed to account for it correctly: otherwise, the growing discrepancy between the predicted and observed atmospheric warming rates would not have become as significant as it has.

In early October 2015 Steven Goddard added some very interesting graphs to his website. The graphs show the extent to which sea levels have been tampered with to make it look as though there has been sea-level rise when it is arguable that in fact there has been little or none.

Why were the models’ predictions exaggerated?

In 1990 the IPCC predicted – on its business-as-usual Scenario A – that from the Industrial Revolution till the present there would have been 4 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing caused by Man (Fig. T8):

Figure T8. Predicted manmade radiative forcings (IPCC, 1990).

However, from 1995 onward the IPCC decided to assume, on rather slender evidence, that anthropogenic particulate aerosols – mostly soot from combustion – were shading the Earth from the Sun to a large enough extent to cause a strong negative forcing. It has also now belatedly realized that its projected increases in methane concentration were wild exaggerations. As a result of these and other changes, it now estimates that the net anthropogenic forcing of the industrial era is just 2.3 Watts per square meter, or little more than half its prediction in 1990 (Fig. T9):

Figure T9: Net anthropogenic forcings, 1750 to 1950, 1980 and 2012 (IPCC, 2013).

Even this, however, may be a considerable exaggeration. For the best estimate of the actual current top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance (total natural and anthropo-genic net forcing) is only 0.6 Watts per square meter (Fig. T10):

Figure T10. Energy budget diagram for the Earth from Stephens et al. (2012)

In short, most of the forcing predicted by the IPCC is either an exaggeration or has already resulted in whatever temperature change it was going to cause. There is little global warming in the pipeline as a result of our past and present sins of emission.

It is also possible that the IPCC and the models have relentlessly exaggerated climate sensitivity. One recent paper on this question is Monckton of Brenchley et al. (2015), which found climate sensitivity to be in the region of 1 Cº per CO2 doubling (go to scibull.com and click “Most Read Articles”). The paper identified errors in the models’ treatment of temperature feedbacks and their amplification, which account for two-thirds of the equilibrium warming predicted by the IPCC.

Professor Ray Bates gave a paper in Moscow in summer 2015 in which he concluded, based on the analysis by Lindzen & Choi (2009, 2011) (Fig. T10), that temperature feedbacks are net-negative. Accordingly, he supports the conclusion both by Lindzen & Choi (1990) (Fig. T11) and by Spencer & Braswell (2010, 2011) that climate sensitivity is below – and perhaps considerably below – 1 Cº per CO2 doubling.

Figure T11. Reality (center) vs. 11 models. From Lindzen & Choi (2009).

A growing body of reviewed papers find climate sensitivity considerably below the 3 [1.5, 4.5] Cº per CO2 doubling that was first put forward in the Charney Report of 1979 for the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and is still the IPCC’s best estimate today.

On the evidence to date, therefore, there is no scientific basis for taking any action at all to mitigate CO2 emissions.

Finally, how long will it be before the Freedom Clock (Fig. T12) reaches 20 years without any global warming? If it does, the climate scare will become unsustainable.

Figure T12. The Freedom Clock edges ever closer to 20 years without global warming

Share:

2,024 Responses

  1. It’s silly to use the alarmists’ terminology.

    Specifically, in this article, “forcings.”

    You show clearly that the actions or substances do not “force” the “climate” to do anything.

    Why then call the actions or substances “forcings?”

    For example: “Models predict rapid initial warming in response to a forcing. Instead, no warming at all is occurring”

    If no warming at all is occurring, then there was no “forcing,” was there?

    Call it man-made CO2, call it man-made methane, call it man-made soot. But do not call it a “forcing” if there was no effect.

    1. Note the word “instead” in the cited passage.

      The observed facts do not tell us there was no forcing. They tell us there may or may not have been a forcing, and that, if there was one, it was outweighed by other forcings in the opposite direction.

      1. Kent is right.

        “He who controls the language controls the masses”. – Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals

        Not a pause that implies future warming, a plateau. Not climate change, anthropogenic global warming. Etc

        1. “Not a pause that implies future warming, a plateau.”

          lol! Nope. Neither a plateau nor a pause. Continued warming. You could try to redefine the word “warming” to mean “cooling”, but I think most people might find that a bit too Orwellian for their tastes…

          earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/files/2015/06/no-slow-down-in-global-warming-720×546.jpg

                1. “I’m seeing conspiracy theory coming…..”

                  Of course! Anthropogenic global warming is a secret plot that’s been maintained for over a century without detection until Interplanet Janet came along and figured it all out.

                  That makes perfect sense!

                  /s

                  “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

                  climate.nasa.gov/evidence

                    1. ❝Consensus❞ has no meaning in science. Besides, the Global Cooling scare was promulgated by the media and not many scientists.

                    1. “The “CO2″ knob isn’t as big as you think….”

                      …so point to a single moment in Earth’s history when polar ice caps were able to withstand CO₂ so high.

                      You’ve been asked to do this multiple times, VooDude.

                      What’s the holdup?

                      “Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.”

                      http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

                    2. ”… so point to a single moment in Earth’s history when polar ice caps were able to withstand CO₂ so high. …”

                      Well, how about RIGHT NOW?

                      ❝…Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,…❞

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/870184797947789c33424fa949ac3609325786d08b13cc8736417e9b1dfcc4b5.jpg
                      ❝… the Antarctic ice sheet [actually] showed a net gain of 112 billion tons [Gt] of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to [an increase of only] 82 billion tons [Gt] of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. … ❝Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.❞

                      http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
                      ”Mass changes of the Antarctic ice sheet … Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a–1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a–1. European Remote-sensing Satellite (ERS) data (1992–2001) give a similar gain of 112 ± 61 Gt a–1. …”

                      Zwally, H. Jay, et al. 2015 “Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses.” Journal of Glaciology
                      http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071

                      E. R. Thomas, J. S. Hosking, R. R. Tuckwell, R. A. Warren, and E. C. Ludlow 2015 “Twentieth century increase in snowfall in coastal West Antarctica” Geophysical Research Letters
                      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065750/full

                      Greenland has been gaining SMB lately:
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8309a6b2860f6c7377cbd7b0a09189560fe4ab97de86bb687aac9bd0ab35206b.jpg
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/19b5a3b7fc4e4c3b4d122ddc3d41019c873547633b6f1c13f533daff8df0b2a9.jpg
                      Greenland is being a “good boy” it seems. Not wee-wee-ing into the ocean (as much as before):

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a06d6daadcb3ce400fc4714f0cb3eb8996c152099c6f4af8df96358383200c36.jpg

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f31a0c09a2626e6b693e8301762f05935cb3b455653b8614afdd2a100b6300e3.jpg

                    3. “the Antarctic ice sheet… showed a net gain of 112 billion tons”

                      That’s good!

                      Yes, there is one study that has found Antarctica is gaining ice, but it is contradicted by other studies.

                      The rest of your post is nonsense.

                      If the findings of the study were correct, they suggest the meltdown of Greenland is more than offsetting that gain, and that the gain is declining.

                      If you understand the polar ice sheets have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand CO₂ so high, why would this surprise you?

                      “The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” “

                      http://www.nature.com/news/gains-in-antarctic-ice-might-offset-losses-1.18486

                    4. ”… “The findings do not mean …, Zwally notes. “I know some of the climate deniers will…not take away from the concern about climate warming.” ” …”

                      In soccer, this is called an “own goal” https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4571d2f04ff9dd65081f80850f4e41e819bf4828246840a2f3e5f777eb0420ad.jpg
                      … your question wasn’t about

                      ”… not take away from the concern about climate warming. …”

                      but “ice caps” and “CO2 so high”

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d9e401069531a57c7200cd75118576bbba7db04aea9e3b07c67437f143b728a0.jpg

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8449c4674f79644447b07cace2f62587d6dc7811ed3432cf9a6386cde694df33.jpg

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0afe77137bf7cbae5f2e2a5630339b58a86319de441db52bb79dd82e62c97960.jpg
                      Martinez is also a “believer” in AGW. That is what the entire paper is about, paleo-CO2 forcings. However, she presents, perhaps unwittingly, the answer to your persistent question …

                    5. “In soccer, this is called an “own goal” “

                      …but this propaganda piece isn’t about soccer, pumpkin. It’s about global warming. If you think there’s a stronger driver of planetary temperature than CO₂, name that driver and point to a single moment in Earth’s history it caused polar ice sheets to form with CO₂ as high as we have today.

                      Why haven’t you done that yet?

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2380af6ac2b092cc85baa6b23b54164a96dab505bc80f7850d76cabbb159e4d2.gif

                    6. It is nice to see that, even GRACE shows a recent gain in ice.
                      GRACE is the best gravity satellite we have, but GRACE couldn’t find its own asses using both hands. (The Terrestrial Reference Frame issue, and 1cm orbital accuracy isn’t enough)…
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f1fcdc4b04bc7f4ce1e5774b653c2a17ef4f2b9083ef4e49bffef0de0db2ff44.jpg

                      ❝… Antarctica … we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.❞

                      http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

                    7. “It is nice to see that, even GRACE shows a recent gain in ice.”

                      …and you cross out the negative number and add an arrow pointing up!!! No pumpkin, GRACE shows a decline in ice. No amount of photoshopping is gonna change that. Now why are you running like a coward from my question? When did some other climate driver override the warming effect of CO₂?

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/147e2c9db47cb45e06ced1ef3b9926e243c177958a672d8adb1e722a0900242e.png

                    8. ”…If the findings of the study were correct, they suggest the meltdown of Greenland is more than offsetting that gain, and that the gain is declining.…”

                      Previously, warmer ocean waters have melted Greenland’s glaciers on-contact. Now, many glaciers have retreated away from direct contact with the oceans, (which reduces the influence of “warmer” water). Now, only the air temperature has a bearing on the ice. As we all know, but some of us won’t acknowledge, average global air temperature hasn’t been “warming” (RSS, UAH).

                      Recent observations have stated that the ice is no longer reaching the sea: “…the fact that most of the glaciers are land terminating…” (Sutterley, Tyler C., et al. 2014, “Evaluating Greenland…”). In the summer of 2008, observations indicated this was not the case, then: “The recent rapid increase in mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet … cause of this acceleration is increased melting at the ice–ocean interface” (Straneo, Fiammetta, et al. 2010 “Rapid circulation of warm subtropical waters in a major glacial fjord in East Greenland.” Nature Geoscience)

                      Greenland, Arctic “report card” https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a06d6daadcb3ce400fc4714f0cb3eb8996c152099c6f4af8df96358383200c36.jpg

            1. ”… know there is no science. …”

              Elementary school students are taught the hydrological cycle. You know, the cycle that includes cloud formation.

              ”Most models are a within a factor of 2 of the observed means.” Double, or half, depending upon your viewpoint.
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/022c4cb56f767fec949dadcea190fad9fc152cc95e8cba42cbe595c9017188c3.jpg

              Wyant, M. C., et al. 2015 “Global and regional modeling of clouds and aerosols in the marine boundary layer during VOCALS: the VOCA inter comparison.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

              http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/153/2015/acp-15-153-2015.pdf

              So, models just can’t do clouds, but clouds are very, very important. Clouds have a major role in the earth’s albedo. Stephens 2012 shows how less than a percent change in clouds, has an effect that is larger than all of “Global Warming”. Models’ clouds are somewhere in the 50% to 200% range, a factor of two… yet, the required accuracy is ½%
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b59016cbdca367691c49fdf3586cdfe4a073a3d37cbfcc62a220c196aaad842a.jpg

              The IPCC knew… (kinda like the recent ExxonMobil “what did they know, and when did they know it…):

              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3072dad2692617fe2b3862d3d8df11a4001fa28e77541b2f93af1dbdba171ff1.jpg

              Trenberth 1999:
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/83ddc3dd5736591296c1408727265451a363a56fe80d138de8833e080adc104d.jpg

              The hydrological cycle transports heat aloft via evaporation and advection of latent heat. Just in this one parameter, ignoring the albedo effect of clouds, Stephens 2012 tells us that the transport of latent heat is not adequately covered in the “energy budget”…
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b9a1014e82f4733bcb23f6bd08db39eb012c1a61b96a27dbd4f98d6bac0042f6.jpg

              Clouds cool the earth, and form, preferentially, when the sea surface temperature rises above a particular value. However, clouds also interfere with infrared transfer, much as greenhouse gases do. How well do the climatologists understand the infrared interference of clouds? Piss poor. Discounting the albedo effect, discounting the latent heat effect, the inaccuracy of “knowing” the value of the long-wave (infrared) effect is way too large to support the “energy budget” of ¾W/m^2 of “Global Warming”:
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/928cbff5932793c5cdc98b3da4b74a287e33b1ad500c0c35440492d91c7706d1.jpg

              The transport of sensible heat is part of atmospheric convection – which is driven by cloud formation, part of the hydrological cycle. Ignoring the Albedo, the Latent Heat, and the Long-Wave cloud effect – so, assuming that the climatologists have those things absolutely correct (which is patently false) … the whole idea that the earth is warming at ¾W/m^2 is totally unsupported by this: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8ee8ea0a2f5d26642f62ea03006582626f7059fc95ebb3b88cb1c6e8769b70d1.jpg

              In fact, the “energy budget” is chock-full of holes. Just the basic “warming”, which Stephens 2012 pegs at 0.60W/m^2, has a tolerance:

              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6b3164d31dd9e4f472d8a6363b7523a3d14ad7a0296f4ec8ee0b6179b8573ba5.jpg

              The models’ performance, back in the CMIP3 days, was worse than abysmal:
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/68cc1628cb22ba106d1ee017efdd85196a3736fb0311bd4d700e169a4dbab25f.jpg

        2. That Rules for Radicals bit is funny. It seems the number one distributor was Dick Armey giving it to his FreedomWorks minions, sort of as here’s what works, maybe we can use similar methods. The earlier Cato Institute suggested use of “Leninist” propaganda (and implied soft sabotage) was at least reworded into the 1996 Newt Gingrich/Frank Luntz GoPac memo (to hide its communist tactics, maybe) “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control”

          Instead of going to all that work disguising the origin, Armey blames Saul Alinsky for using the tactics, while making sure his people know what the tactics are so they can use them, too.

      2. Yes, Kent makes a valid point, you would should probably get your language light e.g. “tamperature datasets” is either an incorrect spelling or an embarrassingly bad pun to include in a ‘serious’ scientific discussion.

          1. “Try learning to read” indeed.

            “other forcings in the opposite direction.”,

            List them.
            Show us the range the research has found

            You know; support your claims. Like 7th graders know to do: best resources, quotes, citations.

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

            CRAAP
            Questions to consider
            Currency

            When was the information published or last updated?
            Have newer articles been published on your topic?
            Are links or references to other sources up to date?
            Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?

            Relevance

            Does the information answer your research question?
            Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
            Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
            Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?

            Authority

            What are the author’s credentials?
            Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
            Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
            Do other books or authors cite the author?

            Accuracy

            Are there statements you know to be false?
            Are there errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar?
            Was the information reviewed by editors or subject experts before it was published?
            What citations or references support the author’s claims?
            What do other people have to say about the topic?

            Purpose

            Is the author’s purpose to sell, persuade, entertain, or inform?
            Is there an obvious bias or prejudice?
            Are alternative points of view presented?
            Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove the claim?
            Does the author use strong or emotional language?

            https://www.gettysburg.edu/library/research/tips/webeval/index.dot

            Research Process Rubric – Middle School
            https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/middlelschresearchrubric.html

            1. The five datasets are plainly cited. And if “Robert” is unaware that “mainstream” science has tried to blame the Pause on two dozen mutually inconsistent types of forcing that are said to countervail against the supposedly large forcing from CO2, then he has only to read the second of my two papers in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, where he will find 25 such papers listed. That, and not in a blog infested by climate Communists, is the place for citations.

                1. Asked and answered. And where is the evidence that the forcings listed in IPCC’s chart, which differ in major respects from earlier such charts, are accurate?

                  1. Ah.. countering with an new, different, unsupported assertion…
                    We want to give thanks for the continuation of posting unsupported assertions, it helps show the denialists’ lack of science.

                    “differ in major respects ”

                    1. When I refer to the earlier IPCC graphs, I expect people not to tell me that my assertion that there are major differences between the earlier graphs and the present graph is “unsupported”. It is supported by simply looking at the 2007 and 2013 versions of the graph of forcings. Do that, and go figure.

    2. The term “forcing” is intended to give the impression that man’s CO2 is somehow “forcing” the climate to do something it otherwise wouldn’t. Make no mistake, these creeps use linguistics like that. They will NEVER admit that, either.

  2. Good lord when will this new facism end!! The worst president ever…the biggest science swindle of all time! Feels like life in a fun house when our president says this is the greatest national security threat, where his administration purposely and flagrantly use almost every federal resource to breach the Constitution and make a mockery of this proud , generous, beacon of liberty that so much blood was spilled for. People, I know most of you are like minded, but this is not just the misuse of science on the line, it’s something that makes the conspiracy theorist seem like the credible historians

    1. The point we have been at for decades now is that even Exxon, like Big Tobacco et al, before it, KNEW of the dangers and used profits to fund criminal sociopaths to mislead the public on the science. Even Exxon and the Koch bros with unlimited resources have been unable to produce a credible study that disproves man made climate change. In fact, both of their studies came to the same conclusion as the consensus.

      The only thing they have left is to attempt to create doubt; which takes time away from creating viable methods for mitigation, adaption to lessen the damage that is coming. Intentionally delaying the process for mitigation and adaption, so that fossil fuel boys can extend their profits, is a crime that will affect people, countries and economies.

      “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

      1. Lying dip. Fossil fuel companies are not responsible for society using fossil fuel. Creeps like you are just trying to demonize them so we’ll accept your harsh tax-and-spend punishments.
        Won’t work, fool.
        Watch your back.

        1. Any fossil fuel company intentionally and knowingly obfuscating research into climate change constitutes criminal negligence and malicious intent at best, and a crime against humanity at worst. The Department of Justice has a moral obligation to prosecute Exxon and its co-conspirators accordingly.

          This scandal—traveling under the hashtag #exxonknew—is just beginning to build. The Inside Climate News series of six pieces is set to conclude this week and be published as a book, but the LA Times apparently has far more reporting waiting to be released.

          The investigation truly came home, when the The Dallas Morning News—read across the oil patch and hometown paper for Exxon—put the ICN investigation on its front page.

          Bring on the RICO charges now.

          http://www.dallasnews.com/business/business-headlines/20151004-qa-former-exxon-scientist-on-oil-giants-1970s-climate-change-research.ece

                1. Oh, you must be confused. I’m not trying to convince you. That would be futile. I hope you rot in hell. I’m trying to show others the evidence.

                  If you’re a hardcore climate change denier, it must be rather demoralizing to learn that ExxonMobil’s own scientists expressed contempt for your views behind your back. If you’ve lost ExxonMobil’s own scientists, you’ve lost the scientific debate.

                  1. You aren’t showing any evidence moron. That’s my point. You keep posting the same two meaningless links. You wouldn’t know science if it bit you in the nose.

                    1. You are really stupid to think that some right wing blogger can disprove man made climate change, when even Exxon with all it’s resources couldn’t.

                      You have got be even more stupid to think you have some kind of credible study from some right wing denier blog that will disprove man made climate change, and yet you can’t get funding from Exxon to publish in some credible scientific journal.

                  2. There is no hard evidence of CAGW – not then, not now. There is only conjecture, which carries no weight in court. I say bring ’em in to court on both sides – Exxon, Tom Karl, Jag Shukla – under oath and cross examined. Get the truth out. End of the day it will be Karl and Shukla and a few others on trial for treason. And how sweet that day will be.

                    1. Not a bit – as long as they are not stealing my money and weakening the national security of my country to do it.

                    2. No doubt Exxon with all their lawyers can tie this up for years, just as tobacco did. But with the former Exxon scientist coming forward along with the documents, the noose is tightening.

                      “Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation” The fossil fuel industry—like the tobacco industry before it—is noteworthy for its use of active, intentional disinformation and deception to support its political aims and maintain its lucrative profits. The following case studies show that:

                      http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

                    3. The tobacco cases also set precedent, the exxon case may go a bit faster what with the data collected, the world view, ….

                    4. With tobacco there were millions of deaths each year, both smokers and non smokers, which provided hard data showing the difference between smoking and not smoking. There is no such thing with cli sci. There is no parallel universe earth with no human fossil fuel emissions to compare. Thus conclusions are conjecture only – no real data to point to. Cli Sci claims against Exxon will be laughed out of court so fast it will make even your thick head spin bobby. Cli Sci is just another ridiculous cult religion.

                    5. Sorry, but we have nearly two centuries of research spanning the globe and spanning millennia. Science done by scientists working in countries around the world. Data and its analysis that is accepted by virtual every scientific organization and government .

                      Your claims, on the other hand, are good examples of rhetoric. Blog inspired rhetoric. Thanks for showing us how thinon science the denialist position it.

                    6. Hell of a lot of good money wasted on this crap, that’s for sure. The only thing those wasted dollars have done is create a swarm of leeches that suck down ever more public funds to create more leeches. Time to call the exterminator. His name is Trump. It’s gonna be a great show, get some popcorn and enjoy!

                    7. Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

                      Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

                      Evaluating Information

                      How to Evaluate Resources

                      The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Usethe CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your reserch!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

                      Research Process Rubric – Middle School

                      . . . .
                      0 points
                      Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence

                      https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

                    8. True and they can’t claim that they didn’t know about the dangers of burning fossil fuels and man made climate change.

                    9. Seems the real, hopefully fully prosecuted, conspiracy. Perhaps (I think) 7 non-political investigations to match the political ones they tried to create doubt about East Anglia with.

      2. .❝my neighbor’s mother is making $98 HOURLY on the lap-top❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
        3gai………
        ➤➤
        ➤➤➤ http://GlobalWorldEmploymentVacanciesReportExpo/GetPaid/$97hourly… ❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦

  3. This has been the most current and transformative set of IPCC projected vs actual data comparisons that I have seen to date. The fallacy of the IPCC’s recent (AR-5) warming projections of 2.5-4.5 degrees/century are still shown to be gross over-estimates and the obvious conclusions imply that much of our current “climate angst” is being driven by a false narrative that threatens our emotional and existential security on a daily basis.

      1. They can’t adjust it anymore and everyday the projections get further away from the observations. At some point it will be clear to everyone that their is no runaway warming. I think when the Arctic sea ice is back within 1sd then this thing is over. The Arctic sea ice is the easiest way for everyday people to see that nothing is happening. Within five years CAGW will be a punchline and Gore, Hansen, and their ilk will be completely discredited.

            1. I’ve added links to graphics to support my points.

              If you feel that arctic ice is on the rebound, a link to some data or graphics would help you demonstrate that this not the product of a fevered imagination.

                  1. 3 years of solid growth… even though we are in the middle of an El Nino.

                    1980 to 2010 is also short term variability… following massive global cooling from 1940 to 1975.

                    And if you look at the chart, we’re exactly as we were in 2007 so it’s also 8 years of no ice loss and Antarctica growing strong.

                    1. Oh goodie, lets play pick the cherries.

                      1982 – 1994 = 12 years no loss
                      2996 – 2003 = 7 years no ice loss
                      2007 – 2015 = 8 years no ice loss

                      Hey, even better lets add them up, so in a 35 year period we have 27 years of no ice loss, or put another way, only 8 years of ice loss.

                      Clearly this is an accurate reflection of what the overall graph tells us.

                      Please don’t interpret this as serious and start spreading it as a meme!

                    2. You just explained how there are roughly 60 year cylces in temperature… Now you are focusing on 30 years with ice…. We’re at the bottom of the cycle… And record ice growth in the South Pole. cognitive dissonance much?

              1. The people that wrote the 1990 I.P.C.C. report felt that the early seventies data was important….they included it in their report. It shows that the ice extent was as low as it is today in the early seventies.

                    1. The reality is that your graph starts with a year of peak ice. If it started in the early seventies then the trend would be flat.

                    2. Which is exactly why I suggest that anyone reading this compare and contrast the graph I linked to with the one you linked to in order to squeeze in another 6 years.

                      Taking the two graphs together covers the whole period you raise, and clearly demonstrates that you are talking nonsense.

                    3. Drat, you got me there, I thought we were doing something fair like comparing like for like.

                      Soooooo, if you are deluded or deceitful or intellectually challenged enough to compare SUMMER ice in 1974 with WINTER ice in 2012 in order to scrape together the festering bones of an argument that there is no evidence of warming….

                      …. when to anyone with eyes to see its clear that your graph shows the consistent decline of Arctic sea ice over a quarter of a century, then there is little that any rational person can say…..

                      …. other than to observe that comparing snowballs with sun cream is unlikely to provide any sensible answer.

      2. Well again no, because despite the fact that in his argument Mr Monckton is cherry picking cherry picked cherries, he then has to go on and admit (and you can almost hear the embarrassed “er” and shuffling of feet)….

        “From next month on, the Pause will probably shorten dramatically and may disappear altogether for a time. However, IF there is a following la Niña, as there often is, the Pause MAY return at some time from the end of next year onward.”

        Even when he turns his back to the other data sets and shouts blah, blah, blah I can’t hear you he knows that his argument if failing.

        However, never one to let reality get in the way, Mr Monckton immediately suggests ignoring any such rise as a short term blip, presumably even while he still grips in desperation to 1998 as a reflection of the norm.

              1. So four independent groups of climate scientists independently evaluate the same raw data and independently come to very similar conclusions ….

                ….. and you think that this is evidence of what exactly?

              1. One possible reason is that they are looking at different things, the four data sets are records of surface temperature, the RSS is lower troposphere i.e. one part of the atmosphere.

                What is interesting is that the four surface temperature data sets give pretty close readings even though they were prepared by different organizations some of which are in different countries:

                http://i.imgur.com/sMM62OM.png

    1. Well no, because Mr Monckton is using a highly selective presentation of information to distort the overall picture.

      Note that he says, “The UAH dataset shows a Pause almost as long as the RSS dataset.”….. but does not show you the actual data, this is for the simple reason that its clear to anyone looking at it that the UAH data set shows warming across the period during which Mr Monckton categorically states in his banner headline that there has been NO WARMING:

      He for anyone interested in reality and not ideological illusion is the missing graph:

      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2015/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2015/trend

          1. The ice is rebounding. Of course the graph that you provided doesn’t show the last couple of years and it doesn’t show the 1970’s. So it is just a cherry pick.

                1. Read your catalog of past posts?

                  Frankly I’d rather have my genitals waxed.

                  If you can see the point in an exchange of views then put forward a position and back it up with some sort of evidence…. as you did with the ice graph.

                    1. For that matter, I would rather have genital warts than read your back catalog!

                      Thanks for not sharing!

                    2. Seriously……. I’m feeding you insult gold here and that is the best you can come up with?

                      You might at least have a go at a bad pun, how about Wartsupwiththat?

                      …… or AGW …. alarmist’s genital warts…..

                      Frankly your pithy retorts are as flat as the temperature trend and earth surface you would have us believe in.

                    1. Er….. not yet you haven’t!

                      You might be correct, but all you have shown is that a record of some sort exists for the early 1970’s.

                      The graph that you linked to shows two data sets stitched together at 1979, with a fracture suggesting that they are not fully calibrated against each other.

                      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/arctic_sea_ice_1971-2012_c2day_and_ipcc.png

                      Look closely at that join and tell me that the data is a good fit.

                    2. It is not a record of some sort. It is the satellite record that was in the 1990 ipcc report. That is a fact.

                    3. OK, lets go with that.

                      Your graph shows two satellite data sets that for some reason (format / calibration / advances in technology?) don’t quite fit comfortably together.

                      The earlier set shows level or even rising ice extent followed by a period of protracted decline.

                    4. So now your are going to argue over the details while missing (or denying) the big picture. The ice is the same as it was forty years ago. Deal with it.

                    5. And it freezes back every year. There is no long term trend that is driven by CO2. If there was then how could the ice rebound when CO2 is at a record high.

                    6. And that is probably the closest we will come to agreement.

                      It is very unlikely that there will be any rebound, what has happened within the past few years is within the limits of the type of natural variation that can be clearly seen on the records dating back 25+ years.

                      If you came back in 10 years and the ice was still growing, you would have a strong argument, but at present you have nothing.

                    7. The whole thing is within natural variation. Which is why the volume was just as low in the early seventies or the thirties. Think about it.

                    8. If you really, really, really think that you can compare summer ice in 1974 with winter ice in 2012 then you are not competent.

                      I hope for your sake that you don’t think that, and this is an elaborate joke. One way or the other, my part in our ‘conversation’ is at an end.

                    9. You win.

                      We have entered a zone were basic laws of reality no longer apply.

                      I can’t raise any argument against a comment stupid enough to look at a sheep and insist its a piece of candy floss.

    2. Even Exxon knows that’s BS.

      The point we have been at for decades now is that even Exxon, like Big Tobacco et al, before it, KNEW of the dangers and used profits to fund criminal sociopaths (like the authors) to mislead the public on the science.

            1. It’s tough on the sociopath deniers with no values that don’t care about the lives of others and want to create doubt on the science, when even Exxon is calling BS on you. Hope you all rot in hell.

            1. Cool pic, must be from one of NASA’s satellites right? Amazing how they can do that science stuff. Let’s see what your source has to say about the melting of the Arctic.

              “Through 2015, the October sea ice extent has declined 6.9% per decade over the satellite record.”
              http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

              Even Exxon knows your BS is just BS. 🙂

              1. You’re thick the ice was just as low in the early seventies or the thirties. It is cyclical. It has nothing to do with CO2 levels. Do you have any idea just how cold it is up there?

                1. It’s never been about the science, even Exxon knew that. How can anybody be so ignorant to think that if Exxon et. al. could not overturn the science with some credible alternative that “a right wing blogger” can with some right wing pseudo science from a right wing blog? Exxon would pay you billions to help fund and publish a credible study that disproved man made climate change.

                  If anyone has some credible study that will disprove man made climate science, they would have no problem getting funding from Exxon et. al. to complete the study and publish it in credible journals. That research would be worth billions maybe even trillions to the fossil fuel boys.

                  Hell, even the Koch bros tried funding a legit science study to overturn the science – and failed – only to prove that the science was right all along. (The BEST Study)

                  How can anyone not know that? The deniers are just immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

                  http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

      1. Yes we have been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the late 1800s that started well before the broad use of hydrocarbons. We are not warming at a faster rate than any of the previous warm periods (Holocene Optimum, Roman Warm, medieval Warm) since the end of the last great ice age around 12,000 years ago. In fact we are cooler than those previous warm periods. The Earth is always either warming or cooling, it is rarely static and unchanging. Just because it warms doesnt mean it was caused by man, it is what our planet does. Do you see any periods of unchanging temp on the graph below?

          1. JMAC it is not BS, it is factual do a little research for yourself about historic temperatures throughout the Holocene (last 12,000 years). Look how warm it was during the Holocene optimum compared to today, and not related to CO2. Or go farther back and look at temp variations since we entered into the great ice age 800,000 years ago. Look how warm it was during the last inter-glacial period (EEmian). It was 3-4 degrees warmer than we are currently and it wasn’t due to CO2, it was natural. So we are being told that recent warming is unprecedented when it isn’t even close to the truth, the whole subject has been politicized. I don’t endorse Monckton any more than I do AL Gore. I have a brain for myself and can research for myself, plus degrees in Geology and Geophysics and I have studied past climates for over 30 years. We cant make a judgment on 100 years of highly adjusted temperature data when our earth has 5 billion years of constant change. 40 or 50 years of warming consistent with past warming is no more significant than 40 or 50 years of cooling.

        1. Couldn’t see a graph below.

          That aside, there are elements of truth in what you say but a lot of effort has been expended in the years since Callendar suggested the idea of AGW in the late 1930’s to unpick natural and anthropocentric strands of climate change. Your blunt assertion is starkly contradicted by almost every major scientific institution on Earth.

          Here is NASA on the Scientific Consensus:

          http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

          Note their links to other organizations that agree with their position.

          1. My assertions on past Holocene & ice age temperatures are fact, just research temperature reconstruction from ice core data, it is extremely well accepted science. Research the Roman and Minoan warm periods as compared to today. The so called consensus doesn’t change what I stated, it is accurate. My point is the Earth’s climate is and has always been highly variable, and much more than what we see today. I maintain the recent 20th century warming is dominantly natural as it started before the broad use of hydrocarbons, but I don’t deny mans activity has had some influence on that warming and we should continue to stride to reduce our impact on the planet. On top of that there are multiple factors that influence warming/cooling on our planet including Green House Gas, Earths orbit/Milankovitch cycles, Solar Irradiance, Ocean currents (PDO/ADO), winds, dust, volcanic activity, etc. CO2 is 400 ppm (0.04%) of our atmosphere and mans contribution is roughly 5% of that, and the computer models that predict warming are continually overstated because they rely too much on the influence of CO2. Its almost impossible to solve a complex equation with so many variables. Look at this article http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/89054 from MIT Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary
            Sciences and it is examining computer projections of warming vs the satellite temperature data. In summary it says the models overstate heating. Also when they remove other natural factors from the recent satellite temperature data, specifically volcanic cooling and El Nino warming there is virtually no warming shown since 1993 (Figure 1 C). This article is also co-authored by NASA/GISS with the aim of trying to explain why there has been no significant warming in the L. Troposphere since the late 1990s despite rising levels of CO2, and that is a fact. And finally consensus doesn’t change the debate, the foundation of science is debate, especially a subject as complex as out earths climate. True science is never settled, as Einstein said ” No amount of experimentation can prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong”.

            1. Thank you for putting in the effort to make a serious point. As its a complicated subject, I’ll break my response into a series of posts:

              CO2 is probably the best place to start. The amount of natural CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly in equilibrium i.e. the amount being generated closely matches that absorbed.

              http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/img/carboncycle.gif

              Your observation about 5% human generated CO2 is WILDLY misleading. The figure is not fixed, instead human beings are adding a (relatively) small amount of CO2 each year that gets added to and builds up in the system.

              This graph by NASA shows nearly half a million years of a carbon cycle that rises and falls though approx 110ppm repeating approximate every 100,000 years. Then right at the end, (the part that is alarming scientists) …. in less than 50 years human activity has almost doubled the range of variation and reconfigured the atmosphere in a way that has never been encountered by human beings.

              http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-080315.jpg

              What is more alarming, is that this line is set to keep rising.

              Any scientists who can look at the NASA chart and advise with a straight face that this is not a potential concern is not telling you the truth. This concern is real and it is not new. In 1965 scientists were already delivery the following prescient warning Lyndon Johnson:

              “Through his worldwide industrial civilization, Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment.”

              1. I appreciate the discussion. Your chart goes back only 400,000 years which does encompass humans on this planet, but is a small fraction of earth’s history. But I agree what man has put in the atmosphere is in addition to the natural carbon cycle, and how it behaves after that point is really not well understood, but 400 ppm is not unprecedented (see below). One other human factor is the vast deforestation that has occurred particularly in the rain forests, and would of had capacity to absorb additional CO2, but you don’t really hear much about that side of the equation. My point is that 20th century warming is consistent with cyclical recent warming periods of the Holcene, and is less in magnitude and equal in slope/rate; so to place the warming on man alone is not logical. What would you say was the cause of recent (last 10,000 years) past warming and cooling events? Are those factors still in place today? What was the cause of the extreme warming at the end of the last ice age when temps rose 13-15 degrees C and sea level rose 300ft, and caused vast ice sheets to retreat to the poles? That was only 12,000 years ago, a virtual blink of the eye in geologic time.

                But also keep in mind that the temperature effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is logarithmic, not linear. There are many technical papers that support this. So the first molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere has a greater heat absorptive capacity than the second, and so on. If it were linear the earth would have overheated long ago when CO2 was much higher than today, and if CO2 was the only driver of heat. The chart below (i hope it shows thru) goes back 600 million years when CO2 was well above 1000 ppm, and there is a disconnect between heat and CO2. Also note how low the CO2 concentration is now as compared to the last 800 million years. Graphs in regards to this subject can be very misleading as it really depends on your starting point. Here is a link to my graph if it doesn’t post.

                http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/co2-levels-over-time1.jpg

  4. I ran across this article a few months back and I found it very interesting. It is from the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) at Lawrence Livermore/MIT and GISS (no lightweights). Title is :” Volcanic Contribution to Decadal Changes in Tropospheric Temperature” by BD Santer et.al. The goal was to compare climate models to the satellite temperature records, but after statistically removing the ENSO and volcanic events that have a strong influence (positive and negative) on global temps over that time.So basically they were looking for temp trends from GHG, and other factors. Figure 1C on page 22 shows the satellite LT temp trend with ENSO and volcanic events removed (~1degreeC/100 years), and shows no warming since 1993. One of their conclusions is ” We show that climate model simulations without early 21st century volcanic forcing overestimate the tropospheric warming observed
    since 1998.” I found this article very significant but rarely have seen it referenced. Any thoughts or comments?

    Here a link to the article http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/89054

  5. I do wonder for how much longer the CAGW zealots will be able to keep presenting their ‘science’ as fact in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Sooner or later even they will have to realise the game is up and the ruse has been rumbled.

    I dunno, with the likes of the BBC’s pro-CAGW hive-mind mentality (and most other msm in the western hemisphere at least) perhaps they’ll get another five years out of the deception. Another five years of stealing taxpayer’s money to fund their on-going research into faeries and unicorns. It defies all common sense.

        1. So why then does your headline state …..

          ….. NO global warming AT ALL for 18 years and 9 months – A NEW RECORD (?) – The PAUSE LENGTHENS again?

            1. It’s a genuine question, you have answered me several times here in posts that you admit to other data sets showing warming, yet your headline is as crudely, bluntly certain as it is misleading.

              1. Don’t be childish. The headline is accurate. Indeed, there has been no statistically-significant warming on any of the major datasets for a decade or two.

        1. Q&A: Former Exxon scientist on oil giant’s 1970s climate change research

          The scientists when I was there were making a genuine effort to understand the science. By the late 1970s, global warming was no longer speculative. There was direct evidence it was not the same type of carbon that was in the atmosphere a hundred years ago. We were looking for something that was a uniquely Exxon contribution to the science, and we had discussions with scientists at Columbia Univ

          What was the nature of Exxon’s research into climate change?

          At the time, the work had only just begun in earnest to really understand the problem rather than make broad-based estimates. If we were to figure out how much atmospheric carbon levels had changed, we needed to know how much CO2 the ocean was absorbing. The ocean, when it gets cold, absorbs CO2, but when it gets warm it releases it, just like a seltzer bottle that’s warm will bubble over.

          How did you go about measuring carbon levels in the middle of the sea?

          Exxon had a fleet of oil tankers traveling back and forth across the oceans. The great thing was the ships always ran the same routes. So we designed the equipment and installed it on board. You could make measurements as the ship was going back and forth, measuring CO2 levels in both the water and in the air at different points in time.ersity, where I was studying….

          http://www.dallasnews.com/business/business-headlines/20151004-qa-former-exxon-scientist-on-oil-giants-1970s-climate-change-research.ece

          1. What is your point. Anyone with basic chemistry knowledg3 knows that water absorbs CO2. Basic water like the ocean even more. It then forms carbonate salts and falls to the bottom of the ocean. Making limestone.

          2. Seriously, do you think this is some kind of smoking gun? Everyone knows when you burn carbon you get more CO2 and it has to go somewhere. And your link didn’t work for me. But your posts is so idiotic and entertaining, I can’t wait to find out the rest of this spellbinding interview… LOL.

            1. Link seems to work just fine. http://www.dallasnews.com/business/business-headlines/20151004-qa-former-exxon-scientist-on-oil-giants-1970s-climate-change-research.ece

              Bear in mind, that I’m not trying to convince you that you’re wrong. That would be futile. I’m trying to show the evidence to everyone else. In fairness, you’re probably doing a pretty good job all by yourself of convincing people of how even Exxon knows your BS is just BS.

              In an effort to deceive the public about the reality of global warming, ExxonMobil has underwritten the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry misled the public about the scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and heart disease.

              As this report documents, the two disinformation campaigns are strikingly similar. ExxonMobil has drawn upon the tactics and even some of the organizations and actors involved in the callous disinformation campaign the tobacco industry waged for 40 years.

              http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

              1. Again. what in that article is a smoking gun. It’s basic chemistry. It is barely even negative as the chemical engineer says the ocean wasn’t playing as big a role as they thought.
                What were you trying to convince anybody with that article?
                Does Exxon control the satellites that show no warming for 18 years.
                DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH THE TEMPERATURE RECORD HAS BEEN ALTERED JUST SINCE 1981. 1890-1980 warming has tripled since 1981. DO YOU KNOW THAT?

                Do you research? Read Hansen et. al. 1981. Look at the global temperature chart in that paper…. compare it to today’s… It is completely unrecognizable… Why do you think that is? Because Hansen is an unbiased scientist who hasn’t been arrested three times or more?

                1. Even Google knows your BS is just BS.

                  Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

                  “The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

                  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/23/google-to-cut-ties-with-rightwing-lobby-group-over-climate-change-lies

                    1. It is indeed unlikely that the chairman of Google has had even one, let alone two, papers published in the prestigious bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. For one who seems head-bangingly fascinated by authority, citing the chairman of Google as an authority seems odd.

                      Meanwhile, the world continues to fail to warm at anything like the predicted rate.

                    2. I’m afraid you are getting a bit befuddled old pudding, I think you are talking about jmac.

                      As to warming at the predicted rate ….

                      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMyMTjjWgAEeQvp.jpg

                      ….. and what was that you were saying about expected warming? Oh yes …….

                      “The current el Niño, as Bob Tisdale’s distinguished series of reports here demonstrates, is at least as big as the Great el Niño of 1998. The RSS temperature record is beginning to reflect its magnitude.

                      From next month on, the Pause will probably shorten dramatically and may disappear altogether for a time. ”

                      ….. by which time we might expect to see actually temperatures running close to the heart of the modeled range, at least for a while, as no one with any knowledge or sense would expect a complex system tor progress smoothly without variation.

                    3. Why do you paid climate-Communist trolls, who bully everyone who dares to question the Party Line in the hope of deterring others who would otherwise have spoken out by now, fail to quote even the head posting properly? As that posting clearly demonstrates, even a large el Nino will not be at all likely to bring the temperature trend since 1990 anywhere close even to the least warming rate that was then predicted.

          3. Nope there wasn’t anything more than this earth-shattering news that water absorbs CO2… Wow. How informative. Dumbed down so even a 5th grader is totally dubious to any significance. WOW. Clearly you never studied chemistry. That’s about the first thing you learn. Why the DI water you use has a pH of 5.5 or so instead of 7.

            1. So, Exxon knows you are full of BS, yet you don’t? Am I right?

              The deniers are just ignorant or immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit. I hope they all rot in hell for delaying meaningful action on an issue that is a danger to all of us on this planet.

              1. You are the ones killing Africans by not letting them have real power supplies… Global warming hasn’t killed anyone. Not a single person… It’s probably saved thousands by not freezing them to death. The CLIMASTROLOGISTS are the murderers.

                You are so clueless you couldn’t even tell that the article was totally informationless.

                1. Even Google knows you are just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

                  Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

                  “The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

                  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/23/google-to-cut-ties-with-rightwing-lobby-group-over-climate-change-lies

                  1. Another leftist who also likes importing cheap labor from other countries. Another globalist in short. Another liar. Another fool. Another commie just like you.

                    1. “commie” = pretty stupid

                      Dayum that commie, tree hugging, hippie, liberal Marxist, New World Order Exxon and their bought and paid for, grant hungry, hoaxing scientists. 🙂

                    2. Apparently far right wingers and their think tanks like the Heartland Institute think it is ok for a company or anyone to knowingly sell a product that they know can do harm (even cause death) to you and your friends. And use profits made from said product, to sponsor disinformation about the peer reviewed science warnings about the dangers of the product. They call that capitalism, especially when they get to have society pay for the damage done. The deniers are just immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

                    3. Exxon knows it’s never been about the science and that your BS is just BS. Desperate times for the liars – as Google calls you.

                    4. No one should be allowed to knowingly sell a product that causes people harm when used as directed, and then use profits from such sales to mislead the public on the science of the harmful nature of the product. People and corporations involved in knowingly misleading the public about the science are criminal sociopaths who don’t care about the lives of others, as long as there is money to be made.

                    5. Who is selling anything that knowingly does anyone harm… Except your communist propoganda?

                    1. Even Exxon and Google knows you are lying and your only hope is to try to create doubt, just like Big Tobacco did.

                      “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

                    2. YOU ARE THE TOBACCO COMPANY IN THIS CASE.
                      Ruining the lives of millions of Africans which could be brought out of poverty.

                      You are the ones killing AFricans… You are the hypocrite that is killing AFricans. You should get the death penalty.

                    3. Tough times for the ignorant and liars like you who have no sympathy for the lives of others as long as there is money to be made.

                      Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

                      http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

              2. You are the ones living on fossil fuel while telling the rest of the world, they can’t have it anymore. Hypocrites to the max. THE MAX… Pounding a way on your plastic laptops powered by fossil fuel… driving your car places every day no doubt. Telling poor people in the rest of the world to go and die.

                1. Looks like Even Google knows you are just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

                  Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

                  “The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

                  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/23/google-to-cut-ties-with-rightwing-lobby-group-over-climate-change-lies

                    1. The point we have been at for decades now is that even Exxon, like Big Tobacco et al, before it, KNEW of the dangers and used profits to fund criminal sociopaths to mislead the public on the science.

                      Even Google calls you a bunch of liars. I hope you all rot in hell.

                    2. Even Exxon knows it’s never been about the science.

                      Apparently far right wingers and their think tanks like the Heartland Institute think it is ok for a company or anyone to knowingly sell a product that they know can do harm (even cause death) to you and your friends. And use profits made from said product, to sponsor disinformation about the peer reviewed science warnings about the dangers of the product. They call that capitalism, especially when they get to have society pay for the damage done. The deniers are just immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

                    3. I post NASA links, you right the communistic diatribe while letting millions of Africans suffer. Sad Little human you are… Are you going to ever post facts… you are starting to bore me with your stupidity

                    4. Why would anyone be so stupid to waste their time looking at some chart from a right wing blogger.

                      It’s never been about the science, even Exxon knew that. How can anybody be so ignorant to think that if Exxon et. al. could not overturn the science with some credible alternative that “a right wing blogger” can with some right wing pseudo science from a right wing blog? Exxon would pay you billions to help fund and publish a credible study that disproved man made climate change.

                    1. Even Google knows you are lying and your only hope is to try to create doubt, just like Big Tobacco did.

                      “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson during the The Tobacco wars.

                    2. You are the ones denying and lying about the satelilte data.
                      You are the ones killing AFricans by condemning them to more and worse poverty.
                      YOU ARE THE TOBACCO COMPANIES.

                      Have you looked at the temp charts in Hansen, et. al 1981 yet. HEre’s the link.
                      http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

                      Can you read a chart? Your communist education looks like it was lacking.

                    3. Exxon knows it’s never been about the science, only ignorant and immoral people who don’t care about the lives of others pretend it is.

                      Even Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

                      http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

                    4. Did you actually read this article? All it is is about some scientist stating the opinions of a few other scientists… Not about any research Exxon had done… You are an idiot fool. You probably can’t even read… only know contro-C control-V

                    5. There are many scientists that worked on the Exxon project coming forward now. Here is another one. Katherine Hayhoe

                      “We’ve known for a long time that Exxon Mobil is one of the chief financial supporters of front groups who sow doubt on climate change and elected officials who vote against climate legislation. If you haven’t heard this before, put some popcorn in the microwave and pull up Merchants of Doubt (film) on Netflix. It will tell you all you need to know.

                      What most people didn’t realize, until recently, was that Exxon was also doing cutting edge climate research and using it as input to their business plan. At the same time they were paying people to tell us it was all a bunch of hooey.

                      Were they really doing legitimate, top-notch climate science? Yup, they absolutely were. I know, because I was doing it with them.

                      My master’s thesis work, and 7 subsequent journal articles, examined the contribution of methane to human-induced climate change. One of my primary collaborators, and the source of at least some of my funding as a graduate student (the bulk coming from scholarships and federal grants), was Exxon. We did the work, we published it in journals like Climatic Change, and we presented it at scientific conferences.

                      Were the scientists I was working with aware of what else Exxon was spending money on, at the time? No, I’m pretty sure most of them were not. Were the people who directed the research program, and who were responsible for conveying the results of our research to those who set company policy, aware? Yes, in hindsight I’m pretty sure most of them were. And that is why this is such an appalling story.

                      It’s one thing to honestly doubt the reality of something that will affect your business and your bottom line. It’s a very different thing to be entirely convinced of its reality, to the point where you are making business decisions based on its reality, and as part of your business strategy, decide that deceiving the average person is the best and most profitable course of action.

                      https://www.facebook.com/katharine.hayhoe/posts/1620770621481152

                    6. You have got be really stupid to think that some right wing blogger can disprove man made climate change, when even Exxon with all it’s resources couldn’t.

                      You have got be even more stupid to think you have some kind of credible study from some right wing denier blog that will disprove man made climate change, and yet you can’t get funding from Exxon to publish in some credible scientific journal.

                    7. I guess that makes you a satellite-data denier then. And we know there is nothing worse than a denier.

                    8. Even Exxon knows you are just trying to create doubt with Lord Moncktons myth (Monckton is a paid shill for the fossil fuel boys and Heartland Institute – who also denied (still denies) the science about the cancer causing effects of tobacco.

                    9. So you are saying the satellites don’t say the temperature has been stable? What are you saying about the satellites? So yoaure a denier?
                      Monckton controls the data coming from the satellites? I don’t think you could understand anything. You have shown no science knowledge at all except to appeal to authority. which isn’t science.

                    10. It’s never been about the science, even Exxon knew that. How can anybody be so ignorant to think that if Exxon et. al. could not overturn the science with some credible alternative that “a right wing blogger” can with some right wing pseudo science from a right wing blog? Exxon would pay you billions to help fund and publish a credible study that disproved man made climate change.

                    11. Right… we know it’s not about the science for you communists. It’s about control. We have been saying that for years.
                      The satellites are controlled by a right wing blog?

                    12. Exxon calling BS on you again.

                      You are really stupid to think that some right wing blogger can disprove man made climate change, when even Exxon with all it’s resources couldn’t.

                      You have got be even more stupid to think you have some kind of credible study from some right wing denier blog that will disprove man made climate change, and yet you can’t get funding from Exxon to publish in some credible scientific journal.

              3. Please… tell me… where was the smoking gun? That interview was bumpkus and you are too stupid to know any better.

                The question isn’t whether we are making more CO2 or whether the concentration is rising…. It is.

                The question is… what does it do to the climate? And so far, absolutely nothing, you know why? Because CO2 absorbs the same infrared frequencies that wator vapor does and it becomes effectively saturated at levels much lower than we are at now.

                That is why all the models have been wrong.

                1. Even Google knows your kind are just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

                  Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

                  “The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

                  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/23/google-to-cut-ties-with-rightwing-lobby-group-over-climate-change-lies

                  1. Another leftist who also likes importing cheap labor from other countries. Another globalist in short. Another liar. Another fool. Just like you. Are you going to post any facts or data or just appeal to the same stupid authorities all day long.

                    1. Even Exxon and Google know you are a bunch of liars really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And your response is to double down on stupid.

                    2. They know the satellites are lying too? Oh no… They are just stupid…. And actually Exxon said no such thing… You are too stupid to even understand what Exxon said…. or Even exxon’s ex-scientist who didn’t seem so bright himself.

                    3. Even the Koch bros know you are lying.

                      Hell, even the Koch bros tried funding a legit science study to overturn the science – and failed – only to prove that the science was right all along. (The BEST Study)

                      How can anyone not know that? The deniers are just immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

                      “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

    1. It’s what happens when welfare kings and queens outnumber productive citizens at the voting booth. It will end when productive citizens wake up and stop allowing public leeches on society to vote, either by barring them, deporting them, or killing them. I’m fine with any of the above. Of course obummer wants to give 11 million illegal alien leeches instant citizenship, that’s 11 million votes to continue the madness. It will change soon – either Trump will be elected and clean out the leeches, or productive people will leave and the leeches will starve.

      1. It’s more like 20 million. Because just like they can’t verify Obamacare applications… they won’t be able to verify that anyone has actually been here or not… they will hand them out like candy. if we let them.

  6. Just in time to destroy any credibility of the Paris Conference…. I suggest we get all of the warmists at the conference to help cut CO2. They need to hold their breaths for an hour. If they can rise from the dead, then we will listen to them.

      1. Liar. He has a Hadcrutch chart in the article. He even mentions methane which is a big reason why the models could be wrong. Real scientists change their hypothesis when the experiment fails.

        1. Apologies, you are partially correct, Mr Monckton does indeed mention HADCRUT4 though the graph is a combined mean lumped in with other surface datasets.

          Hardly sits well with the banner headline though, no warming, …..er…… um……. apart from these guys!

            1. This does not make sense as a piece of english language let alone raising a valid point.

              Feel free at any point to clarify if its a question or statement, and/or add enough information to give some hint on what you are talking about.

                1. As far as I’m aware, there has never been any doubt or even debate that temperatures do not rise in a direct linear fashion. If you look at the temperatures for the whole C20th there seems to be a 30 year cycle of switching back and forward:

                  1880 – 1910 stable

                  1910 – 1945 warming

                  1945 – 1970 cooling

                  1970 – 2000 warming

                  For this reason I was not remotely surprised by the possibility of a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in warming, and in fact had thought it likely that we would see stable temperatures until 2030 followed by some serious warming.

                  That we are not seeing a pause in the surface temperatures is worrying.

                  As to why temperature rises and falls while CO2 rises, the influence of the PDO seems a likely driver. Throughout much of the C20th temperatures and PDO seemed to react in a similar way, with temperature peeling away from PDO towards the end of the century.

                  http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1900/to:2015/mean:12/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/to:2015/mean:12/scale:0.2/offset:-0.5

                  This peeling away is important. If my suggesting is correct and the PDO has a large impact on surface temperatures then with the PDO now in its cooling phase we might expect to be seeing a much more pronounced pause or cooling period.

                  If the PDO in cooling period is no longer able to restrain warming, then we are potentially in real difficulties when it switches to warming mode, i.e. the 1930’s are likely to be a tough time.

                  1. While I guess you’re a lot smarter than your average Climastrologist and computer model. That’s why none of us believe them. They are either lying, stupid or both.

                    1. Nope, my views are simply based on a fair rather than an ideologically driven reading of what climate scientists have been saying calmly and consistently for decades.

                    2. All the models have bern wrong period. And 15 more years of a pause, which you are predicting makes it more so. Period.

                    3. I’m not predicting anything. I am not a scientist.

                      All I said was that I would not have been surprised by a pause, even one lasting another 15 years, and that I find the lack of one ominous.

                      As to the models, it is blunt and premature to state that they are wrong. They are running at the low side of the range of possibilities at present but as we appear to be in the grip of a strong El Nino event, it is likely that temperatures will rise, as suggested by the abrupt rise in temperatures recorded on this NASA record ….

                      http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

                      …. which is likely to bring temperatures towards the center of the model prediction ranges. I can’t see anything out there yet that composites most recent model predictions with most recent temperature, so neither of us can say for certain we are correct.

                    4. If you take away the meddling they are very wrong. If you look at the satellite data they are very very wrong.

                    1. Ahhh. Peer-reviewed newspapers?
                      Tell me what was responsible for the 200 year drought in the Southwest 800 years ago?

                      What California is experiencing is only significant because so many people live there. You have no historical perspective. NONE. That and it will all be over probably in 3 more months.

                    2. I showed you mine, now its only polite to show me yours. Feel free to link to something credible when you can scrape up enough energy.

                    3. Google historic California droughts.
                      You’re the idiot here criticizing the work of a real scientist. you should be doing the research before showing your ignorance.

                    4. Have you used that thing called google yet? Have you informed yourself. Or do you want me to post the 300 links?

                    5. OK so now we have a link to a paper that is nearly 35 years old, that I am in no way interested in reading, so …..

                      …… if you feel that it is misrepresent data then you’ll need to point it out, as my interest in an early document now decades out of date does not stretch very far at all.

                    6. OF course not, You have no interest in seeing how big you have been duped. Your fine with trusting the consensus and not doing your own research… Understood… go about your merry ignorant way.

                1. Sorry to rain on your conspiracy theory but that’s not true.

                  This from the NASA website shows 1940 is warmer than 1980

                  http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

                  Also, this from Woodfortrees:

                  http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1900/to:2015/mean:12/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/to:2015/mean:12/scale:0.2/offset:-0.5

                  And these are 4 independent summaries of the raw data by 4 independent institutions all in agreement the warming continues:

                  http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1309_Temp_anomaly.jpg

                    1. No you didn’t you alluded to it…..

                      ….. and I in turn linked to two recent data sets that record 1940 as hotter than 1980.

                      Hansen may have said something different but all that shows is that there is independence and debate among the scientists studying this issue and they are not lock step propagandist as you suggest.

                    2. No.. Hansen now buys off on the data…. It’s being constantly adjusted. If you were paying attention and looking into history, you would know that. 1880-1980 warming has tripled since 1980. Showcase example of confirmation bias if not fraud.

                    1. In the 1970’s they were saying it had cooled about .6 or .7C. I don’t see that drop… Were scientists too stupid to be able to read thermometers accurately?

                      That’s a pause… not cooling. 0.2C cooling is noise. Again, reference Hansen et. al. 1981 and every newspaper and magazine from the time. The temperature data is totally incompatible with the ice data as well. If the 1890’s were really 1C cooler, we would have been in an ice age.

                    2. As we’ve reached a point where you have to split hairs between the words ‘pause’ and ‘cooling’ or go back almost 35 years to drum up some tired outrage, it is really the end of any useful of vaguely interesting discussion.

                      End.

                    3. Because you can’t account for the changes… And without all those temp modifications you have nothing. The satellites have called your bluff.

                    4. For that to be true, 4 independent scientific institutions in 3 separated countries would have to be engaged in an elaborate decade long fraud that involved considerable co-ordination between them and required the entire scientific establishment turning a blind eye.

                      Feel free to either provide some proof to back up this stunning conspiracy theory ….. until then I’ll stick it in the file labelled “Delusional Ranting”.

                    5. What happened to Hansen’s data? If all four datasets are independent… what happened to the chart in Hansen, et. al 1981?

                    6. I neither know nor care.

                      Feel free to explain its relevance or for that matter why you can’t come up with anything more interesting or convincing than what you feel is a single error(?) in a single decades old scientific paper.

                    7. It shows how the temperature record of today… doesn’t look anything like it did 35 years ago. And you can see all the changes have been in one direction. Past gets colder… present gets hotter. Yet you claim all four datasets are independent… How can that be… if they all deviate from the true historic original datasets?

                    8. And all it takes is peer pressure and confirmation basis… no conspiracy or fraud needed…. but some of them probably know the gig is almost up.

                    9. So, no proof, just more delusional keyboard slap and wishful thinking from a back room grunt ….

                      ….. if you can come up with something more substantial I’d be interested in seeing it, until then, this is just a bit dull and childish.

                      End

          1. Bear in mind, that I’m not trying to convince you that you’re wrong. That would be futile. I’m trying to show the evidence to everyone else. In fairness, you’re probably doing a pretty good job all by yourself.

            That video speaks volumes to the type of people that have been lying and trying to create doubt about the science.

            Even Google calls you just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

            Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

            “The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/23/google-to-cut-ties-with-rightwing-lobby-group-over-climate-change-lies

              1. So even Exxon and Google know you are a bunch of liars really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And your response is to double down on stupid.

                Email from Former Exxon Employee Lenny Bernstein http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-Leonard-Bernstein-Email.pdf

                Deception Dossier #1: Dr. Wei-Hock Soon’s Smithsonian Contracts https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/global-warming/Climate-Deception-Dossier-1_Willie-Soon.pdf

                Deception Dossier #2: American Petroleum Institute’s “Roadmap” Memo http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-2_API-Climate-Science-Communications-Plan.pdf

                Deception Dossier #3: Western States Petroleum Association’s Deception Campaign http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-3_WSPA-ppt.pdf

                Deception Dossier #4: Forged Letters from the Coal Industry to Members of Congress http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-4_ACCCE-forged-letters.pdf

                Deception Dossier #5: Coal’s “Information Council on the Environment” Sham http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-5_ICE.pdf

                Deception Dossier #6: Deception by the American Legislative Exchange Council http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-6_ALEC.pdf

                Deception Dossier #7: The Global Climate Coalition’s 1995 Primer on Climate Change Science http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-7_GCC-Climate-Primer.pdf

                1. Please… Point out to me the smoking gun in each of these cases…. The first one… Corporations are out to make money and keep up their image…. Duhhhhh.

                  Please be specific so I can address specific points… Please start with the most damning.

                  You kill more Africans with your hyprocrisy than Global Warming ever will.

                  1. Even Exxon and Google knows you are lying and your only hope is to try to create doubt, just like Big Tobacco did.

                    “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

                    1. Posting it a hundred times doesn’t make it any less false. You communist hypocrite pig. African Killer.

                    2. Exxon = communist now = pretty stupid comment.

                      Desperate times for the liars – as Google calls you.

                  2. It’s never been about the science, even Exxon knows that.

                    Apparently far right wingers and their think tanks like the Heartland Institute think it is ok for a company or anyone to knowingly sell a product that they know can do harm (even cause death) to you and your friends. And use profits made from said product, to sponsor disinformation about the peer reviewed science warnings about the dangers of the product. They call that capitalism, especially when they get to have society pay for the damage done. The deniers are just immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

                    1. You are right. For communists like you, it’s about the power and how nice it feels to think in your puny little insecure mind that you are saving the world with your stupidity.

                    2. You are really stupid to think that some right wing blogger can disprove man made climate change, when even Exxon with all it’s resources couldn’t.

                      You have got be even more stupid to think you have some kind of credible study from some right wing denier blog that will disprove man made climate change, and yet you can’t get funding from Exxon to publish in some credible scientific journal.

              1. communist = pretty stupid too.
                Dayum that commie, tree hugging, hippie, liberal Marxist, New World Order Exxon and their bought and paid for, grant hungry, hoaxing scientists. 🙂

                Even Exxon and Google knows you are lying and your only hope is to try to create doubt, just like Big Tobacco did.

                “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

                  1. Even Exxon, Google and the Koch bros know it has never been about the science.

                    Do you seriously think that you have info of some credible scientific study that disproves man made climate change? How stupid of you not to get Exxon et al and Koch bros to pay you billions for such a study?

                    The deniers are just immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

        1. OK, setting aside your crude assumptions on what I am or am not ignoring, here is an overlay of RSS, GISS & UAH between 1980 & 2015 with the trend lines added for that period.

          http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/offset:-0.2/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2015/trend/plot/rss-land/from:1980/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2015/trend/offset:-0.2

          RSS drops slightly after 2000 relative to the other two but the overall trend lines are very similar.

          This short term variation in the sets is hardly the killer evidence you seem to think it is, and even at that, Mr Monckton admits that he is expecting to see a kick up in RSS within the next two years.

            1. 1979/80 to present is also the period of time that is covered by the RSS & UAH data sets, so is significant in that respect.

              Global cooling between 1945 and 1970 is a whole other issue, important in its own right but of less relevance to the specifics of this article.

      2. Mobius, you have loops in your brain…..Lord Monckton is a very brilliant antagonist who is very careful in the vetting of his information….. it is your HADCRUT4 et al that have selectively been pruned to remove all mitigating temperature information. The University of East Anglia (CRU) is the laughing stock of the entire scientific community after the release of their severely warped leftie emails….. we all know that their info (also helped by the Hadley Center) is carefully modified to support AGW….. why on Earth would anyone still believe those wack jobs.

              1. Wow !! You know that talking to yourself in jibberish is a serious psychological problem. You need help. I think Loopy that you should hold your breath for 10 minutes as an exercise to reduce you carbon footprint. Let me know how that works out for you. HA HA HA HA HA HA

        1. I should really be more specific. Look at the two graphs in his article showing IPCC predictions. You may notice they show different times spans?

          If you composite them together you see that Monckton uses different starting points for the 1990 & 2005 graphs, so he is not comparing like for like but manipulating the information to exaggerate the mismatch between the green line and the RSS data set.

          The purple line allows a like for like comparison. This is typical of the man.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/429e8f823a3acc483aedb6b5da094e8a9dc4c0a9d2e658336072cecb6a6a8593.jpg

  7. So, with all the skill of a second rate magician Mr Monckton is engaged in clumsy misdirection.

    He focuses heavily on one data set dealing with one part of the atmosphere with only a brief and dismissively worded reference to any of the other data sets that do not support his argument.

    So, just for the record, here is the temperature record from the Japanese Meterological Agency which clearly shows warming during the last 18 years, 9 months, 3 days, 1 hour, 30 seconds…… or whatever figure Monckton has to use to try and make his claims stack up.

    https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2014/11/oct_wld.png&w=1484

    1. No misdirection at all. He tells both sides of the story. Even noting how one of the reasons the models would be off is because they overestimated methane concentrations.

      You are a blind delusional fool.
      Read Hansen et. al 1981…. Look at the temperature charts… What happened to them?

      1. I would have no objection to Mr Monckton if he laid the information out clearly e.g. setting terrestrial and satellite data sets side by side, then explain that between 2000 & present 2 of the data sets show warming and one does not.

        Instead he launches into his banner headline of no warming, dwells a lot on RSS, dismisses GISS as fraudulent and then, perhaps most tellingly, mentions UAH but …….. er um does not let you see the graph itself…… I wonder why ……. could it be because UAH actually shows warming and is closer to GISS than RSS.

        In fact, if Monckton laid his information out as follows I would be less inclined to dismiss him as a pedller of snake oil.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/offset:-0.2/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2015/trend/plot/rss-land/from:1980/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2015/trend/offset:-0.2

        1. Spare me the righteous indignation. In most of the article, he averages RSS and UAH together… You didn’t read it… You skimmed it at best. A quote:

          To be precise, a quarter-century after 1990, the global-warming outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.27 Cº, equivalent to little more than 1 Cº/century. The IPCC’s central estimate of 0.71 Cº, equivalent to 2.8 Cº/century, that was predicted for Scenario A in IPCC (1990) with “substantial confidence” was approaching three times too big. In fact, the outturn is visibly well below even the least estimate.

          RSS and UAH start in 1980… after a 35 year period of global cooling. So seeing a trend upward after that for a few years should be expected. THE FACT IS THEIR IS NO EXPLANATION for the divergence… Except that the surface temps keep getting fudged every other week.

          1. Again thank you for deciding my reaction for me, and back in the world of reality I’m not remotely indignant, I’m simply making a point that 4 terrestrial data sets are broadly in agreement:

            http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1309_Temp_anomaly.jpg

            I’m also pointing out that the UAH data set is in pretty close agreement with them, and that the RSS shows a small recent divergence that is hardly enough to tear down 30+ years of scientific research.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/offset:-0.2/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2015/trend/plot/rss-land/from:1980/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2015/trend/offset:-0.2

            Again you have no evidence that surface trends are being falsified nor do you make any reference to the fact that the satellite records also have to be adjusted to allow for a range of factors including the cross calibration of different satellites.

            As to the divergence, there is temporary variation in all the data sets even the terrestrial ones based on largely the same raw data. If there divergence were to continue for another 10 years or become more pronounced you might have a point but you are at least 5 years away from being able to make a valid point……… while even Monckton admits that he is expecting to see a rise in the RSS figures shortly.

            If we accept your argument that AGW is not occurring I’m at a loss to understand why warming post 1980 is an absolute given.

            Ultimately though it comes down to whether we trust our scientific establishment or put or faith in a backroom grunt like yourself cheerleading for a notoriously eccentric fantasist…..

            http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5509/14208730053_2999c0d7e3_o.jpg

            ……. who the UK House of Lords has taken the EXTRAORDINARY steps of writing to and publishing their letter effecting calling him a liar……

            http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/

            …… and who has no qualms about parading his slender grasp of reality in public:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl2lShU6zD0

            Stick with your fantasist if you want, I prefer science and reality.

              1. Having finally found the correct graph, there are minor variations but nothing that contradicts the main thrust of modern graphs>

                The pause / cooling between 1940 & 1970 is evident on both graphs.

              1. Here is a plot of the UAH data sheet from 1995 to as close to present as is available.

                I’ve overlaid trend lines for 1997, 1998 & 1999 to present and every single one shows a rise.

                http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1995/to:2015/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/to:2015/trend

                So unless you are trying to say that the hottest point of an extreme year is typical, then I don’t see where you are getting the no warming from.

                1. The UAH dataset shows no warming at all for 18 years 6 months from May 1997 to October 2015. The basis for calculation of these graphs is clearly explained in the head posting. Try reading it. The start-date for each zero-trend graph is simply the earliest date from which a zero trend runs. Not exactly a difficult concept to understand, is it?

                  The further graphs supplied in the head posting show that the discrepancy between the rates of warming predicted by the IPCC and the rates that are actually observed continues inexorably to widen. For some of the reasons why this exaggeration is happening, read my papers in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

                  1. Hmmmmm, can’t see where you’ve explained UAH without lumping it in with RSS except in the “Key Facts About Global Temperatures” bit where you include a UAH graph that clearly shows warming.

                    To make it do anything else you would have to work really hard. I tried with a 1997, 1998 & 1999 trend line and they ALL SHOW WARMING.
                    .
                    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1995/to:2015/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/to:2015/trend

                    The gap between model predictions and observed temperatures continues to widen. Don’t really see that, recent warming is bringing the temperatures back towards the center of the predictions.

                    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMyMTjjWgAEeQvp.jpg

                    MY paper’S’ …… you’ve had more than one paper published in China? Do the ACTUAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS whose coat tails you hung off not get really peeved by your arrogant dismissal of their contribution?

                    1. It is a simple matter to anyone but a bought-and-paid-for climate-Communist crook to calculate the least-squares linear-regression trend on the UAH temperature data for the past 18 years 6 months. The trend is zero (or actually a tad below zero).

                      As to my papers on climate sensitivity, they are proving highly popular with the scientists who read the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The first paper is, by a factor ten, the most-downloaded paper in the entire 60-year archive of that distinguished journal of the world’s largest academy of sciences.

                    2. You missed a trick.

                      I was using the wrong information (thank you to Odin2 ….. presumably heir to Odin 1).

                      Apparently UAH5 has been replaced by UAH6, the first showing a rise and the second not:

                      https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/figure-24.png

                      Strange that you reject the terrestrial data sets because they have been ‘tampered’ with but are more than happy to include this one which has also been adjusted.

                      Time and again, a close look or a scratch of the surface reveals the type of dishonesty in what you do or say that the UK Government skewered you for in public.

                      http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/

                  1. Cherry-picking dishonesty. You have deliberately chosen a period which least represents the true overall warming trend in the data. A year or two either side, and the data shows virtually the same warming trend as the entire dataset – a perfect illustration that short term trends are not robust. You know this perfectly well, and your cherry-picking nonsense is about as effective an admission of your intention to deceive as it’s possible to make, without actually stating it outright.

                    https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaupload/tmp/4da10997a42bed09840fa28e4a536b04d51a60cbc7768b430e3630cb/original.jpg?w=800&h

                    1. Well done!

                      (Now we’re going to be named as co-conspirators..

                      “As Lenin used to say, where should we be without the useful idiots? It is not a crime to be an idiot. But it is a crime knowingly and persistently to lie with the intention of deceiving others, either with intent to profit or with intent to cause loss. Several of the paid climate-Communist trolls here are now well known to the authorities, who are marshaling the evidence. No small part of that evidence is to give the trolls fair warning that if they depart from the truth in future they may face jail. Then, if they persist in their lies and deceptions, their intent can be more easily demonstrated.

                      Since the fraud of which these creeps are a willing and profiteering part is arguably the largest fraud ever perpetrated, their punishment will not be small when they are eventually brought to book. They can expect long prison sentences. And that will serve them right. They thought anonymity would protect them. Well, it won’t.”
                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/climatedepot/no_global_warming_at_all_for_18_years_9_months_a_new_record_8211_the_pause_lengthens_again_just_in_t/#comment-2350370887 )

                    2. Don’t be childish, and don’t be repetitive. The basis on which the calculation for the graphs in the head posting are conducted, including the determination of the start date by calculation, is explicitly and carefully set out in the head posting. The truth is that by now there should be 0.3 degrees/decade warming, if the IPCC were correct in 1990, but for the last couple of decades there has been more like zero, and the warming rate since the satellite data began in 1979, is equivalent to little more than 0.1 degrees/decade, little more than a third of the IPCC’s predicted rate.

                      Every six months at WattsUpWithThat I prepare an analysis of all the principal terrestrial and satellilte datasets over all timescales, so that the complete picture is available for those who want it. These monthly reports concentrate on the RSS dataset, which reports first each month, and they constitute a valuable resource for those who are genuinely interested in what is actually happening to global temperature. So don’t be silly.

                    3. Monckton stacks one dishonesty on top of another, see also his double standards in happily accepting the adjusted UAH v.6 data set while rejecting ALL of the terrestrial ones because they have been adjusted.

                    4. Of course – anything that appears to lessen the actual warming rate, Monckton and his co-conspirators welcome with open arms, unquestioned. It’s so transparent…

                    5. At times it seems there is no comment so daft, no fact so shaky or no tactic so low that they will not embrace it to shore up a failing argument.

                    1. For some time I had been concerned that UAH was running hot. I had conveyed those concerns to the operators of the dataset. They had themselves realized some corrections needed to be made. They made them.

                      There is a simple calibration test one can use. Because the lower troposphere occupies the lower 5 km of the atmosphere (or thereby, and varying with latitude), heat transfer by evaporative-convective processes should lead to a greater warming with altitude, as far as the mid-troposphere, than at the surface. Accordingly, on the basis of well-understood physical principles, the surface temperature change should be about 83% of the mean lower-troposphere temperature change and only 33% of the temperature change in the mid-troposphere (Santer et al., 2003, cited by IPCC, 2007). Yet the terrestrial tamperature datasets do not – as they should – show less warming than the satellite datasets: they show more warming.

                      And the amount of extra warming they show is approximately equal to the sum of the urban heat island effect (quantified in Michaels & McKitrick, 2007, as an overstatement of land surface temperature changes by double) and those elements in the terrestrial-temperature corrections that appear fictional and inadequately justified by science.

                      Bottom line: since the warming rate in the quarter-century since October 1990 is only 0.25 Celsius (mean of UAH and RSS datasets), the mean of the surface datasets should be 0.2 Celsius – equivalent to a centennial rate of only 0.8 Celsius. Not exactly a problem.

                    2. So is Spencer’s data set peer reviewed?

                      On the other point, I have an admission…..

                      ……strange though it may seem, it would not in any way surprise me if you are correct and there has been a recent pause in the rise of surface temperatures, given that the C20th was marked by 30 year long periods of warming followed by 30 year long periods of stability or even cooling e.g.

                      1880 – 1910 stable
                      1910 – 1945 warming
                      1945 – 1970 cooling
                      1970 – 2000 warming

                      http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1309_Temp_anomaly.jpg

                      If that were indeed a pattern and projected forward it might go something a little like this

                      2000 – 2030 stable / cooling
                      2030 – 2060 warming

                      I had been wondering about this for about 5 years and was very interested to recently come across the excellent Wood for Trees site which allows us plebs to check the data ourselves.

                      What I found really interesting from this was the similiarities between surface temp and the PDO throughout much of the C20th century.

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b2abb2d951fbd956508d5f5ad6d2584188d34cf310dcd87120f0bad73abbceab.jpg

                      Interesting that your reliance on the RSS and unchecked UAH v.6 data sets would fit this pattern pretty well.

                      Oh, and having put forward this idea, had a quick browse, and here is a real scientists saying something very similar:

                      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/new-take-global-warming-hiatus

                      Here is a quote from Shang-Ping Xie in the article that seems pretty appropriate to our discussion.

                      “Because of natural cycles of various timescales, global temperature rises in a staircase-like manner instead of shooting up straight”

                1. The furtively anomymous “The” is apparently incapable of determining a least-squares linear-regression trend on a time-series. The trend on the UAH v.6 time-series shows no global warming, at all, for 18 years 6 months from May 1997 to October 2015. Try doing your own research rather than lifting it from propaganda sites.

                  Had you done your own research, you would perhaps have discovered by now (for this is at least the third cut-and-paste of the same posting by you, which is a breach of site rules) that there is no UAH v.7.

                  Conclusion: whichever climate-Communist advocacy group is paying you $98,000 p.a. to troll for totalitarianism at sites like these in the hope of scaring off others who might otherwise find the courage to express dissent from the Party Line on climate is not getting good value for its money.

                  1. My anonymity is perfectly reasonable. I make no false claims as to my identity. For instance, I wouldn’t claim to have been a science advisor to Margaret Thatcher if I hadn’t been nor would I claim to be a member of the House of Lords if I weren’t.

                    I admit my mistake re. UAH v7. I meant the one you quote from, UAH v6. This data set is not officially recognised as the gigantic adjustments to UAH v5.6 have not been peer reviewed. There appears to be no just cause for these adjustments other than to eliminate the 0.104c per decade warming trend recorded by UAHv5.6.

                    You do yourself no favours by calling me out on my anonymity but then claiming you know I am paid by communists. I can confidently and honestly say I receive no payment from any group or person regarding what I write or say about climate change. Christopher Monckton can make no such claims, having been paid by the fossil fuel funded heartland institute.

                    1. Delivering cheap insults from behind a cloak of anonymity is cowardice. You are no more an expert on the peerage than you are on the climate. According to the legal opinion I obtained when I had received notice from journalists that the Clot of the Parliaments had opined that I was not a member of the House, the Clot is wrong and I am a member, albeit without the right to sit and vote. There is nothing the Clot can do about it.

                      As to the advice I gave to Margaret Thatcher, I advised her on a number of scientific questions during my period at the Downing Street policy unit from 1982-1986. It is not clear to me on what basis you assert the contrary: but it is certainly no basis in fact.

                      You have at least conceded that there is no version 7 of UAH. However, version 6 is close to the RSS dataset, which is peer-reviewed, so no doubt in due time Dr Christy and Dr Spencer at UAH will give an account of their changes in a reviewed journal in the usual way.

                      If you behave like a paid climate-Communist troll I am entitled to state that that is what you are. By directing falsehoods and insults at me from behind a cloak of craven anonymity you are certainly a coward.

                    2. LOL! So cruel!

                      …but funny as well…

                      “Oh, the grand old Duke of York”…

                      Is Chris a birther as well? It’s difficult to keep track of the crazy…

                      It’s a conspiracy of the Clot of Parliaments and the paid Climate-Communist Trolls! lol!

                    3. Glad you like my Gilbert & Sullivan costume. I wear it for Victorian evenings around the piano.

                      But, on any view, that is off topic. The fact that there has been no global warming for 18 years 9 months is the toplc. And on that topic you appear to have nothing to say: an admission, perhaps, that the head posting is in all respects true.

                    4. Lord Haw Haw Monckton does not set out to do himself favours.

                      He sets out to bait, happy to insult others though at times his bottom lip comes out for a quiver when people are rude back to him.

                      As far as anonymity is concerned, he is perfectly happy for the Heartless Institute et al. to channel secret funds through anonymous channels, presumably because a little bit falls into his pockets to sweep him off on round the world junkets and keep him in sherry.

                    1. I was one of those who asked for a re-examination of the dataset because statistical tests showed it was running artificially hot. Those of us who thought that were right: indeed, the proprietor of this website, when the new version came out, contacted me to say I had called it correctly.

                    2. So, a well known classicist peddler of nonsense, gets the thumbs up from the political ideologue who runs a propaganda project for a conservative think tank ……… spare me your self adulation, and let us all know when anyone gets round to peer reviewing Spencer’s latest offering.

                1. UAH shows a warming trend of zero from May 1997 to October 2015, using the standard least-squares linear-regression model recommended by the IPCC and by Phil Jones at East Anglia.

                  And I’m not surprised that the moderators would not allow you to inform me about v. 7 of the dataset. The last adjustment, several months ago, took the series from v. 5.6 to v. 6.0, where it is at the moment. As part of my usual due diligence before adopting the new version, I wrote to Dr Roy Spencer, who keeps the dataset, and he confirmed what I had long suspected: that there had been some errors in his data that did not exist in the RSS data. When the UAH data were corrected for that error and for various other, smaller errors, the result was the new dataset. Dr Spencer made no attempt to push the data in one direction or another: in his words, in a splendid email to me, “It is what it is.”

          2. I do congratulate Planet8788 on having given the paid climate-communist trolls who regularly infest sites such as this a run for their money. The purpose of the environmental-Socialist extreme advocacy groups that pay them is to ensure that here, as everywhere else, anyone who expresses skeptical opinions is terrorized into silence by a barrage of co-ordinated, lavishly-funded hate-speech. The technique, invented by Goebbels and perfected by Ion Mihai Pacepa, former head of the Desinformatsiya directorate of the KGB, does work well to silence dissenters, who, not being paid as the climate-Communist trolls are, eventually tire of trying to express their own legitimate viewpoint. By methods such as this, a kind of dismal, enforced “consensus” has been inflicted on the world.

            The reason why the totalitarian trolls are so very angry with me is that I can’t be silenced, and they have at last begun to discover that even their systematic attempts to trash my reputation (see e.g. my Wikipedia entry, which is vile untruth artfully dressed up) have backfired on them, because third parties watching this debate, and not participating because they fear that they will be subjected to the same hate speech, threats etc. that every effective climate skeptic is compelled to endure, are beginning to realize that in my case, as in many others, the hate speech is a little too shrill and a little too obviously co-ordinated, with a few key web pages that can be endlessly linked to, etc.

            But the money for climate hysteria is beginning to run dry, and no small part of the reason is the failure of the usual suspects to produce credible, scientifically serious answers to the growing and now embarrassingly large discrepancy between prediction and reality.

            So, well done Planet8788. You have been more than usually persistent and courageous in facing down these paid climate-Communist trolls, who spread their poisonous hate-speech and their ingenious falsehoods from behind a cowardly safety-curtain of anonymity. However, the prosecuting authorities are now taking a real interest in the many complaints from skeptics that a serious and elaborately-coordinated fraud has been practised, and their net is beginning to widen to take an interest in how the climate-Communist advocacy groups have paid large sums in fraudulent attempts to silence dissenters from the Party Line.

            I confidently expect that, in due course, some of the regular merchants of falsehood who appear over and over again on these threads, often making rebarbatively repetitive cut-and-paste postings, will discover that the anonymity they thought they enjoyed will not protect them from eventual prosecution as the fraudulent aspects of the climate scam begin to reach the criminal courts.

            That is not to say that every believer is a fraudster. Far from it. As Lenin used to say, where should we be without the useful idiots? It is not a crime to be an idiot. But it is a crime knowingly and persistently to lie with the intention of deceiving others, either with intent to profit or with intent to cause loss. Several of the paid climate-Communist trolls here are now well known to the authorities, who are marshaling the evidence. No small part of that evidence is to give the trolls fair warning that if they depart from the truth in future they may face jail. Then, if they persist in their lies and deceptions, their intent can be more easily demonstrated.

            Since the fraud of which these creeps are a willing and profiteering part is arguably the largest fraud ever perpetrated, their punishment will not be small when they are eventually brought to book. They can expect long prison sentences. And that will serve them right. They thought anonymity would protect them. Well, it won’t.

              1. I am grateful to Robert for his acknowledgement of the dismal effect that his bullying in these threads appears calculated to achieve. It is failing, though.

                  1. I don’t get my science from opinion polls; I get it from studying the theory and the data, and reading papers in the learned journals, and sitting at the feet of learned professors and doctors. I certainly don’t get it from some political party or another. But the Republican Party has shown itself uniquely courageous in standing up to the sneering hate-speech of the climate Communists and stating, quietly but firmly, that the science is not settled.

                    1. Thank you….

                      ” Republican Party has shown itself uniquely courageous in standing up to the sneering hate-speech of the climate Communists”

                    2. “The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence[7] that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.2). {2.3, 6.5, 2.9}”
                      SPM AR 4

                      “Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. ”

                      SPM AR5

                      “…the science is not settled.”

                      Oh, who to accept? Some blogger who won’t cite anything or the well researched statements of a team of scientists with demonstrated expertise in their specialized fields?

                    3. Don’t shift your ground. You denied that there were major differences between the forcing charts in AR4 and AR5. Now that you have looked at both graphs and seen some major differences, you suddenly drop all mention of the graphs and talk about Man having caused some warming instead. Not very intellectually honest, are you? Not very competent, either.

                      Meanwhile, the world continues not to warm by very much.

            1. And previously, you claimed I made 150k, amended to 155k, then amended with 35k expense account.
              And named an organization.

              And then showed no evidence.

              “Several of the paid climate-Communist trolls here are now well known to the authorities, who are marshaling the evidence. “

              1. Since you lurk behind an incomplete name, because you are too cowardly to declare who you are, I shall say exactly what I like about you, and you will have to take it, because it is not directed at a person: merely at a cult. That cult employs useful idiots like you to disrupt these threads with numbingly repetitive, futile and hate-filled comments.

                Meanwhile, the world continues not to warm at anything like the predicted rate. And that is a fact that you should no longer seek to deny. It is the truth, as even the IPCC has accepted.

                  1. Asked and answered. All the evidence, in detail, with references, is in the head posting. Get someone to read it to you, or perhaps to draw some nice pictures if that’s easier for you to understand. I hear your library burned down the other day. Both books were burned – and one of them hadn’t even been colored in. So grow up, and accept the overwhelming evidence that the predictions made in the Holy Books of IPeCaC were false.

                    1. Is this you pretending that the IPCC is working to their 25 year old projections without acknowledging that within 5 years they had revised these and that their subsequent projections where significantly more accurate.

                      http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/IPCC%20Verification%2090-95-01-07%20vs%20Obs.png

                      So did you know that and just fancy sticking the lie in anyway or was it a case of not actually looking at the information for 25 years yet thinking you were competent to make a valid point?

                    2. Try getting Nanny to read the head posting to you in words of one syl-la-ble. You will see that not one but two graphs comparing IPCC’s exaggerated predictions with real-world data are given: one commencing in 1990, another in 1995. Both show that the predictions are considerable exaggerations.

                      Your graph above, which is not sourced, leading to the suspicion that it comes from a climate-Communist website, displays the various predicted trends, but does not display the changing actual trends to provide a proper comparison. The trend in both predictions and in observed temperatures has fallen, so that even the IPCC’s more recent predictions continue to be very substantial exaggerations.

                      It would be better if, instead of parroting the climate-Communist talking points that have long since been discredited (and some of them are the subject of fraud investigations), you did a little thinking. To you and your paymasters, perhaps, this is a childish propaganda war. To skeptics, this is a scientific question, and that requires a combination of study, understanding, and intellectual honesty.

                    3. Well Lord Haw Haw, if your own Nanny had spent some time instilling a sense of honesty into you instead of beating out any trace of socialism, perhaps you would not be distorting information to shore up your failing argument:

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/429e8f823a3acc483aedb6b5da094e8a9dc4c0a9d2e658336072cecb6a6a8593.jpg

                      As this doctored piece of nonsense demonstrates, you are a dab hand at manipulating graphs to show what you want them to.

                      GIven you obvious ‘skill’, I wonder that instead of complaining, you don’t just rustle up your own version showing the observed trend lines relative to the IPCC projection lines.

                      Perhaps I could then respond by providing another graph showing the rather closer match between the IPCC projections and the terrestrial data sets.

                1. So, basically you are saying you are just making up stuff.

                  Interesting to see what you say next time you take questions at one of your slideshows.

                  “Since you lurk…
                  . . . .
                  …and hate-filled comments.”

                  1. What I am saying is this. Some years ago I was made aware that various climate-Communist advocacy groups were spending very large sums of money trying to trash my reputation, because they had concluded that my commentaries on the climate question were proving effective in high places (I advise several governments). So they set up a number of people to follow me and my writings full-time. They paid them a lot of money to do this. And they indulged in various interesting techniques to see to it that my speeches did not go viral on the internet.

                    On one occasion, I received a phone-call from Texas A&M University, from a professor who used to monitor the internet there. He told me had had come across clear evidence that someone (he did not know who) had spent at least $250,000 trying to stop a single speech of mine from attracting more than the 5 million hits it had already received on YouTube, spread across several sites.

                    Till then I had no idea of the lavish funding that these environmental-Socialist advocacy groups had available to them, still less of what vast sums they were willing to spend to try to silence me. Well, all that money was wasted. It got to the point where the sheer hatred shown to me by the climate Communists became so obvious to all that hard-Left websites are now the best recruiting-agent for the truth: people read the hate-speech about me and realize its perpetrators have gone way too far, and that nearly all of them are anonymous cowards like you – the lowest of the low.

                    So they contrast the detailed scientific answers I give to comments with the yah-boo from the likes of you, and they draw their conclusions. And their conclusions are not at all favorable to the climate-Communist cause. Which is why I take the trouble from time to time to reply in detail on these threads.

                    The fact, the undeniable fact, is that the rate of global warming since 1990 is a small fraction of the rate predicted by the IPCC in that year. It is all set out in the head posting. And when ordinary, unprejudiced, non-socialist, freedom-loving, open-minded people read these postings, they can see for themselves who is trying to tell the truth – and it isn’t you. You are paid a lot, and paid to lie, but the money is wasted, because you are so bad at it.

                    1. “Some years ago I was made aware …”
                      Vague, unsupported assertion.

                      “..various climate-Communist advocacy groups…”
                      Unnamed.
                      And semantically loaded namecaĺing.

                      “were spending very large sums of money ”
                      No numbers €, £, ¥..

                      “..trying to trash my reputation, ..”
                      No examples.

                      “…because they had concluded..”
                      No evidence.

                      ” that my commentaries on the climate question were proving effective in high places”
                      No evidence

                      ” (I advise several governments).”
                      No evidence.

                      And that is just the first sentence…..

                    2. Don’t be childish. When you are asked to produce evidence, you run a mile.

                      The science is clear: the world is not warming at anything like the predicted rate. See the head posting for details. And the fact of the long pause in global warming, almost unknown two years ago, is now known to all, thanks in no small part to these regular monthly updates. So you are going to have to produce some serious science if you wish to refute the evidence. Behaving like a small and more than usually unintelligent child will convince no one but yourself and – one hopes – your climate-Communist paymasters, who must be becoming more than a little concerned at your ineffectiveness, your repetitiveness, your stupidity, and your obvious lack of any knowledge of or interest in objective scientific truth.

                  1. I am entitled to any facts I like about a hate-speaking, paid climate Communist troll who is too terrified and craven and cowardly even to admit who he is. That is the conspicuous fact: the cowardliness of those who post their hate speech here under pseudonyms. Most well-run websites ban trolls like you from making rude comments about your betters unless you are prepared to say who you are. But you are not man enough to admit who you are. You snipe childishly from behind a contemptible curtain of anonymity.

                    1. Many well-run websites print these graphs, which is why they have gained such a very large currency, and why they appear so often on television. After all, that is why your climate-Communist paymasters pay you to try – unsuccessfully – to disrupt the discussion threads here. The huge audience now watching these exchanges is 94% supportive of the truth as expressed in the head posting.

            2. If anyone has some credible study that will disprove man made climate science, they would have no problem getting funding from Exxon et. al. to complete the study and publish it in credible journals. That research would be worth billions maybe even trillions to the fossil fuel boys.

              Hell, even the Koch bros tried funding a legit science study to overturn the science – and failed – only to prove that the science was right all along. (The BEST Study)

              At this point, the deniers are just immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

              1. I had to keep looking to make sure that screw was posted by ‘monckton’. Out of context, many of the statements fit to what Lord Monckton and Exxon have been doin.
                And both well documented.
                The Climate Deception Dossiers (2015)

                Internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of disinformation—a deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today.
                http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos

                https://youtu.be/fbW-aHvjOgM

                1. Monckton is a criminal sociopath and pitiful excuse for a human being. As long as he can make money, he doesn’t give one slime ball about the lives of others. He is just that slimy. Those right wing values voters version of hell was made for him.

                  The point we have been at for decades now is that even Exxon, like Big Tobacco et al, before it, KNEW of the dangers and used profits to fund criminal sociopaths to mislead the public on the science. Even Exxon and the Koch bros with unlimited resources have been unable to produce a credible study that disproves man made climate change. In fact, both of their studies came to the same conclusion as the consensus.

                  The only thing they have left is to attempt to create doubt; which takes time away from creating viable methods for mitigation, adaption to lessen the damage that is coming. Intentionally delaying the process for mitigation and adaption, so that fossil fuel boys can extend their profits, is a crime that will affect people, countries and economies.

                  “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

                2. I hope that some of the invetigations that seem to be in the offing start to shine a light on the network of funding agencies used by the likes of Exxon & the Kochs.

                  It would be really useful to have the full extent and nature of these exposed to public scrutiny.

              2. Jmac, as usual, puts its foot in its mouth. The problem is indeed that climate “science” – or at least the notion that global temperatures are rising as predicted, when it is blindingly obvious that they are not – is man-made. It is fabricated. The evidence, however, is clear. The world is not warming as predicted, and even Dr Muller, the author of the BEST study, acknowledges that that is the case. Shortly before he published the results, I met him at the Los Alamos climate conference, at which he and I both gave talks. He seemed surprised when I told him what the results of his research would be. I said that he would broadly find the terrestrial data accurate. He asked what I thought of that conclusion. I said it did not much concern me, for at that time I had little reason to doubt the accuracy of the terrestrial data.

                However, there has been considerable tampering since then, on a scale that does seem more than a little suspicious. Close analysis of the changes suggests that they were co-ordinated between the three longest-standing terrestrial datasets with the intention of falsely eradicating the pause in global warming, which all three datasets had previously shown. Suddenly, all three of them ceased to show that result, while the two satellite datasets continued to show it.

                So, try making some scientific points rather than trotting out the tired climate-Communist insults you are paid to make. Those insults may well deter others from joining these threads, and no doubt that is your fell intent, for totalitarians have never believed in free speech, and when they are losing an argument, as they have completely lost this one, they resort to various tactics to try to deny or delay the truth. But, as the apocryphal Book of Esdras says, “Great is truth, and mighty above all things.” The world is not warming at anything like the predicted rate, and that fact, which cannot legitimately be denied, casts more than a little doubt upon the future predictions of doom that the climate Communists peddle.

                    1. When was the conference? Who sponsored it? What did you do to have such a nice retirement, that you can fly around the world at your own expense?

                    2. Perhaps you have not heard of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. They organize a climate conference every few years. I attend several such scientific conferences every year, including an annual visit to the seminars on planetary emergencies of the World Federation of Scientists. This year I shall also be going to a scientific conference in Paris, and another in Essen. For my work on climate sensitivity and on climate economics is interesting to those who are genuinely curious to know the truth, and the vast majority of scientists try to keep an open mind on subjects they have not themselves studied, so they are intrigued to hear a well-marshalled case for the skeptical position.

                      What I did was to be very successful with a series of inventions that other people thought were mad. But they worked. And they were profitable. For it is one thing to be able to invent something, and quite another to bring it to market successfully.

                    3. Monckton, nobody could make this stuff up.

                      1. Monckton claimed that he has developed a cure for Graves’ Disease, AIDS, Multiple Schlerosis, the flu, and the common cold. This is no joke–he actually filed applications to patent a “therapeutic treatment” in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Bluegrue speculates that Monckton is likely filing his applications and then letting them lapse after a year without paying the fees necessary to have the Patents Office take the process forward. That way, he can claim he has filed for a patent, but never has to have the Patent Office determine whether his “therapeutic treatment” is patentable (or pay any fees). Is it homeopathy? Massive doses of vitamin C? The world waits with bated breath.

                      2. The list of diseases cured by Monckton’s miracle tonic expands from time to time. At one point he claimed, “Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI.” At another time he said, “Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, food poisoning, and HIV.” Maybe some of you physicians out there can help me interpret this, but it looks to me like Monckton is claiming that his Wonder Cure will 1) wipe out any virus without harming the patient, and 2) cure auto-immune disorders that may (or may not) have initially been triggered by a viral infection. It is unclear to me whether bacterial infections are supposed to be affected since, for instance, food poisoning could be caused by either. [UPDATE: Monckton apparently is saying the miracle cure should be effective against both viral and bacterial infections, as well as prions.]

                    4. What about flights, accommodation & expenses for your Heartless junket or the Australia trip.

                    5. None of your business, and off topic. However, my last Australia trip was a three-month Christian mission that I preached to the Pentecostal churches of the state of Victoria. And that was paid for by the love-offerings of the large congregations that attended my popular sermons. As for the American trip, I visited several destinations and the cost was, therefore, divided among those audiences before whom I had the honor to speak. All of this is quite normal, and it happens a thousand times as often for believers as it does for questioners.

                    6. None of my business …….. or in other words, the expenses were pretty generous thank you, a wee bit of a velvet lining to the old pocket eh?

                  1. Get Nanny to read the head posting to you in words of one syl-la-ble. Fig. 3 shows the IPCC predictions made in 2007, just eight years ago. Failed again. If you were only interested in the truth, you would be interesting yourself. But you are only interested in peddling the climate-Communist propaganda you are paid to peddle, and that is merely laughable, though no doubt profitable.

                    Meanwhile, millions in Africa starve and die of disease because environmental Communism won’t allow them cheap, clean, reliable, base-load coal-fired electricity. Just as the environmental Communists killed 50 million with their half-assed ban on DDT, now they are killing tens of milliions more by denying them electricity. It is time to make all forms of totalitarianism illegal on the ground of the crimes against humanity that they have committed and, alas, continue to commit.

                    1. My word you are right!

                      Apologies, I was so caught up in observing that one of your posts which stated …..

                      “Meanwhile, the rate of warming since 1990, on all three longest-standing terrestrial datasets and on both satellite datasets, is below the IPCC’s least warming rate predicted in 1990. That will continue to be the case if the coming el Nino is followed by a la Nina.”

                      ……..contained such a deceptive omission of the subsequent predictions that I forgot to look at your many graphs.

                      However, I was studying these with renewed interest when it struck me as interesting that they had different starting dates and I was curious to see what would happen if you overlaid them, so here you go, a composite:

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/429e8f823a3acc483aedb6b5da094e8a9dc4c0a9d2e658336072cecb6a6a8593.jpg

                      So you have raised the green line showing the 2005(7?) prediction, exaggerating the mismatch between this and the RSS data set, whereas the purple line allows a like for like comparison against the 1990 IPCC prediction.

                      Bickmore was right, you pile on a dense layer of information, but just look carefully at it and there is always the error, or the lie.

                  1. There is a strange pleasure to be had when a denier presents you with something genuinely interesting that they haven’t realized skewers their nonsense.

                    Thanks, for passing on the link, looks really good, I’ll try and read it over the next couple of days.

                    1. Nothing really new in it but it was from 2012 and it does mention Heartland specifically. Maybe the author has some solid evidence somewhere though.

            3. Dayum that commie, tree hugging, hippie, liberal Marxist, New World Order Exxon and their bought and paid for, grant hungry, hoaxing scientists. 🙂

              Even Exxon is calling BS on your BS.

              1. The only comment mentioning me that any senior executive of Exxon Mobil has made, as far as I know, was by Rex Tillerson, the then newly-appointed chief executive, in 2006, when I had published a letter to Crowe and Boxer telling them not to try to stifle the free speech that the United States Constitution guarantees to its citizens. He said to one of his board meetings: “That letter seems to have gone everywhere.”

                Apart from that, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. However, no serious scientist would dispute that the temperature records are as I display them to be, for it is a simple matter to download the data, perform the calculations and publish the graphs, which will not look any different to mine. So don’t be childish. If you have a serious scientific point to make, then make it. If all you can do is repeat mere yah-boo, then don’t bother.

                1. I’m talking about your childish fetish for calling people “communists”. Even Exxon knows your BS is just BS. And I seriously doubt you ever met Rex Tillerson. Prove it, show us some written documentation, otherwise I call BS on that too, since everything else you say is BS.

                  1. And where did I say I’d met Rex Tillerson?

                    I call the anonymous, paid, climate-Communist trolls that infest these sites cowardly anonymous paid climate-Communist trolls for the good and sufficient reason that that is what they are. It is an unfailing mark of the Socialist – whether National Socialist, Communist Socialist or Environmentalist Socialist – to believe whatever Party Line is handed down, and to go on believing it and parroting it for long after it has reached its sell-by date.

                    If there had been a little more intelligent comment from jmac or Robert or CB or Icarus62 or any of the others who appear not only here but on dozens of other threads with depressing regularity and still more depressing lack of the slightest interest in the objective truth, one would suspect that perhaps they were not, after all, paid trolls. But they are – and lavishly paid at that. And all for nothing. For, in order to get this particular scam going, it was necessary for the climate Communists to make lurid predictions. They first did so in the late 1980s, and the IPCC joined in the fun in 1990.

                    But now, inevitably, those prejudiced and baseless predictions are not coming to pass. On the satellite data, there has been no global warming for 18 years 9 months. The terrestrial data would have shown something similar, had there not been a co-ordinated arrangement between the controllers of the datasets to make adjustments that had the effect of falsely getting rid of the Pause that all of them had shown until a couple of years ago. The RSS and UAH data continue to show the Pause, but the three terrestrial datasets, with less universal coverage and inadequate standardization of methodology and equipment, do not. Something is wrong somewhere, and my postings provide the data that allow people who are interested in the truth to see the data for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

                    And I do not thing the climate-Communist trolls would waste so much of their time with their hate-speech here unless they and their paymasters in the various lavishly-funded environmental-Socialist advocacy groups did not think these graphs were wrecking what little is left of the credibility of the Party Line.

                    In the end, like it or not, those original exaggerated predictions will prove to be the undoing of the IPCC. For they will not come to pass. And, in your heart of hearts, you begin to suspect that that may be true.

                    1. Well, if even Exxon knows your BS is just BS, are they communists too. 🙂 Didn’t you have one paper you couldn’t get published anywhere except by some sort of Communist China organizations?

          1. So this is the tampered with chart that you elsewhere advise that Spencer has not given out any reason for changing.

            How is this different from the terrestrial data sets that you reject because they have been altered?

          1. This does not contradict my post or its comment on you presenting the information in a skewed way e.g. you will note that I did not explicitly mention that you include the RSS graph either.

            My argument is simple, if you want to understand what is happening, then compare the information on a like for like basis without scary mood music telling you what to think.

            As an example here is an overlay showing the GISS, RSS & UAH data sets with trend lines.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/offset:-0.1/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2015/mean:12/offset:0.25/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2015/trend/plot/rss-land/from:1980/to:2015/trend/offset:-0.1/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2015/trend/offset:0.25

            Can heartily recommend the Woodfortrees site. You don’t have to take my word or Monckton’s for anything but can check yourself.

            1. The graphs since 1979 show warming at a rate equivalent to just 1.2 K/century: but that is well below half of the central estimate predicted by IPCC in 1990.

              And determining a trend from 1979 tells us nothing about whether a trend from 1997 to the present has been accurately determined. The trend since 1997 is zero, even though the anthropogenic forcings that are supposed to be driving the warming are supposed to be increasing at what is supposed to be an accelerated rate.

              The widening discrepancy between prediction and observation, between theory and practice, does not inspire much confidence in the over-politicized process of the IPCC. There is at present no basis whatsoever for alarm about Man’s influence on climate.

              1. The graphs since 1979 …… that seems a bit vague, best to look at some, first, one of the early ones ….

                http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2015/09/gr-climate-report-137-300.png

                …. that actually looks pretty accurate, what about another, again some older models ….

                https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/1/1380599335494/ProjvsObs450.jpg?w=605&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=8303b34642b603f93bd359c55da93ed5

                …. which again look pretty good, so what about more up to date models ….

                https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMyMTjjWgAEeQvp.jpg

                …. running a bit low but as you yourself admitted in the article we are heading into a strong El Nino period that is likely to bring temperatures back towards the center of the model predictions.

                1. As the head posting makes quite clear, even a strong el Nino will not bring global mean surface temperature up even to the lower bound of the prediction that the IPCC made in that year. The scare was based on the original predictions. Those predictions have now been proven to have been wild exaggerations. On the CMIP5 models, the much-adjusted recent predictions, one would not expect to see more than 0.5 degrees’ warming by 2100, which is scarcely a problem, is it?

                    1. The above chart is deliberately misleading – indeed, it is the subject of an ongoing fraud investigation. The reason why it is fraudulent is that those who compiled it deliberately omitted to show the trend-lines of observed temperature change alongside those of predicted change; for, had they done so, it would have been apparent to all that each of the successive predictions of the IPCC has been excessive – a fact that the graph you reproduce was falsely intended to conceal.

                      Of course, this is a relatively small fraud, but it is part of a connected series of far more serious frauds that the security services and police forces of several nations have been investigating ever since the Climategate emails that let so much daylight into the corruption of the academic climate-science establishment.

                      One should try to find peer-reviewed sources wherever possible. Reviewers would – and certainly should – have made the points I have made about the self-evident defects in the above graph.

                    2. What a load of old tosh. The graph shows a range of IPCC predictions against the actual recorded temperatures. Anyone wanting to make a further point can add trend lines.

                      For it to be fraudulent it would have to misrepresent the information

                      ………. and on that point your own graphs as displayed in figs 2 & 3 are a much better example of fraud.

                      A close look reveals something very odd about the second one, so I overlaid them:

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/429e8f823a3acc483aedb6b5da094e8a9dc4c0a9d2e658336072cecb6a6a8593.jpg

                      You have hiked up the green line showing the IPCC temperature predictions from 2005 exaggerating the difference between this and the RSS data set.

                      The purple line positions the 2005 prediction line with the same starting point as the 1990 red prediction line allowing a like for like comparison and aligning more closely with the overlay with all the prediction lines I posted previously.

                      http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/IPCC%20Verification%2090-95-01-07%20vs%20Obs.png

                      On another note, your grand investigation of Climategate fraud has had 6 years to work it out, so where are the prosecutions? Or is this just one more lie from the big book of Monckton fantasies?

                      Or perhaps the 9 separate investigations that cleared the scientists of any wrong doing in this ludicrous non scandal are more relevant.

      1. And I said that you FOCUS on one data set and have a BRIEF AND DISMISSIVELY worded reference to the others.

        Given the central importance of the temperature data sets I would describe combining three data sets into one, while ignoring the Japanese Meteorological Association’s information all together as a very BRIEF summary of a lot of core information.

        1. Don’t blub. If you want to produce your own graphs, write your own software or borrow someone else’s. My graphs, which are correctly determined and presented, show quite well – on all datasets, even the terrestrial tamperature datasets in which no one can now place any credence – that global warming (if it is happening at all) is not happening at anything like the predicted rate. Some of the reasons for the ever-growing and damaging discrepancy are to be found in my published scientific papers.

          1. Graphs?

            Here is a summary of the 4 main terrestrial data sets all of which show warming post 1998:

            http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1309_Temp_anomaly.jpg

            Here is the UAH data set from 1995 to 2014 with the trend lines for 1997,1998 & 1999 overlaid, all showing warming post 1998:

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1995/to:2015/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/to:2015/trend

            Here is an overlay of temperature trends on model projections.

            https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMyMTjjWgAEeQvp.jpg

            Interesting that even you agree that we are likely to see warming in the months ahead that would bring the temperature trend back towards the center of the model projections.

            “The current el Niño, as Bob Tisdale’s distinguished series of reports here demonstrates, is at least as big as the Great el Niño of 1998. The RSS temperature record is beginning to reflect its magnitude.

            From next month on, the Pause will probably shorten dramatically and may disappear altogether for a time. “

            1. Why do the paid climate-Communist trolls endlessly repeat the lies they are paid so handsomely to tell from behind a safety-blanket of anonymity? The warming of the coming months will not even lift global temperatures to the lower bound of the extravagant 1990 prediction, equivalent to a near-linear warming of 1 degree by 2025, that was made by the IPCC in 1990.

              And if you are incapable of determining the least-squares trend on the UAH data from May 1997 to October 2015, a period of 18 years 6 months without any global warming, precisely as I had said, then don’t parade your ignorance here. Go and learn some math.

              1. It’s a mark of how pathetically threadbare your argument is that you have to resort to such a cheap trick to come anywhere close to making a point.

                For anyone interested in reality, Monckton here is referring to the IPCC’s VERY FIRST projections carried out TWENTY FIVE Years ago.

                What Monckton DOES NOT TELL YOU is that the IPCC corrected their projections in 1995, significantly reducing the projected warming, nor
                does he tell you that the IPCC further refined their projections three more times over the following 20 years. This diagram provides a neat summary.

                http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/IPCC%20Predictions%2090-95-01-07.png

                And this one shows the current model that Monckton doesn’t like, related to temperature showing the most recent temperature rise as reflected in the terrestrial data sets that Monckton really, really, really doesn’t like.

                https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMyMTjjWgAEeQvp.jpg

        1. The rate of warming since February 1997 is exactly as I have shown it in the head posting. It is a warming of 0.21 degrees. This counts, statistically speaking, as “barely significant”, since the published combined coverage, bias and measurement uncertainties are 0.16 degrees. It is equivalent to just 1.1 degrees/century, which is little more than one-third of the 2.8 degrees/century predicted by IPCC, as its central estimate, in its 1990 First Assessment Report.

          The central point is not only that the two datasets with the most complete coverage – RSS and UAH – show no global warming at all for getting on for 19 years, but also that the terrestrial tamperature datasets, despite numerous adjustments that account between them for just on half of all 20th-century warming, still show so very much less warming than had been predicted.

            1. When I was six I was taught not to chant Socialist slogans such as yours. You are unable to refute any of the fact stated above, and, accordingly, you tacitly concede that they are correct. So kill the sloganizing, learn some science, and grow up.

  8. This is the same Heartland Institute the Tobacco companies used to deny the science that tobacco causes cancer. Millions died. These people are the most vile among us. They have no values whatsoever, and are willing to lie their butts off about anything, as long as there is money to be made.

    Even Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

    http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

    1. Get your facts straight Jmac!
      It was already well established in the late 1950’s that smoking caused cancer. In 1964 the Surgeon General recognized smoking could cause lung cancer. The Heartland Institute didn’t even exist back then. It was founded in Chicago in 1984. GET EDUCATED!

      Banerjee the lead reporter of that article from Inside Climate News stated: “We never said Exxon stopped its research, nor suppressed the results.”

      Exxon didn’t know about AGW decades ago, because there was no scientific certainty. Even today there isn’t any empirical evidence that CO2 is the driver of climate.

      In response to Inside Climate News, Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers responded, showing that the article was inaccurate and left out numerous examples where Exxon is still conducting research.
      https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2487075-jeffers-statement.html

      Did you know that Inside Climate News is funded by anti-oil and gas foundations?
      No bias there what so ever! s/.

      1. Did you know that even Exxon knows your BS is BS?

        Apparently far right wingers and their think tanks like the Heartland Institute think it is ok for a company or anyone to knowingly sell a product that they know can do harm (even cause death) to you and your friends. And use profits made from said product, to sponsor disinformation about the peer reviewed science warnings about the dangers of the product. They call that capitalism, especially when they get to have society pay for the damage done. The deniers are just immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

          1. Even Google says you are just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

            Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

            “The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/23/google-to-cut-ties-with-rightwing-lobby-group-over-climate-change-lies

              1. So even Exxon and Google know you are a bunch of liars really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And your response is to double down on stupid.

                1. Exxon certainly hasn’t said that. And Schmidt is your communist butt buddy… Totally not a climate scientist… nor a chemist. Are the satellites lying too? Did the Koch bros. program them?

                  1. Even the Koch bros know you are lying.

                    Hell, even the Koch bros tried funding a legit science study to overturn the science – and failed – only to prove that the science was right all along. (The BEST Study)

                    How can anyone not know that? The deniers are just immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

                    “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

                    1. The satellites are lying too?
                      You are the ones killing AFricans.. The Kochs build hospitals.
                      You are nothing but a big fat communist hypocrite.

                    2. Exxon = communist now = pretty ignorant comment.

                      Desperate times for the liars – as Google calls you.

                    3. My old Republican party does most of that now (I left when the Cato Institute suggestion to use “Leninist” propaganda, and implied soft sabotage, seemed to be so corruptly implemented in the 1996 Newt Gingrich/Frank Luntz GoPac memo, “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control).” See http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm

                      Though implemented by the Republican party for political purposes, it seems the model Exxon likes as they try to create doubt about their own science now. Why not ask their original scientists whether they think the current efforts are science, politics, or just plain propaganda for profit?

                    1. When the troll starts to post something of substance. I will respond with something of substance.

                    2. Another example…”troll”

                      monckton claims he knows I earn 155k +35k in expense account and even names my employer….
                      That sounds like trolling….

                    3. Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

                      Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

                      Evaluaing Information

                      How to Evaluate Resources

                      The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

                      Research Process Rubric – Middle School

                      . . . .
                      0 points
                      Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence

                      https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

                    4. ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge
                      Under pressure from shareholders, company promised eight years ago to stop funding climate denial – but financial and tax records tell a different story

                      “Exxon funded the Mississippi senator Roger Wicker, who cast the single no vote earlier this year against a symbolic “sense of the Senate” resolution that climate change was real and not a hoax. The resolution passed 98-1. Wicker, who received $14,000 from Exxon, voted no.”

                      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

                    5. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen. {1.1}
                      Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years in the Northern Hemisphere, where such assessment is possible (medium confidence). The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C 2 over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist (Figure SPM.1a). {1.1.1, Figure 1.1}” SPM ipcc.ch

                    6. In 1981, The 1940’s were the hottest… The temperature record has been massively manipulated.
                      Read Hansen et. al 1981. See what it looked like then.

                    7. Tell us exactly how much. When. Where.
                      Seems a bit odd that in a field full of new research, you have to go back a third of a century to show us something you think sports your claim….

                    8. How much what?
                      Page 961. Temperature chart.
                      Compare it to today’s.

                      Is that hard to understand? It will show you how much it has been adjusted.

                    9. Or you could do an analysis of the data.
                      And show the sources that have been informing your opinion.

                    10. I have analyzed it. It is a chart. It shows 1940 being much hotter. It shows significant cooling after 1940. That cooling has been erased.
                      You can’t read a chart? You are just as smart as that other dolt on here aren’t you.

                    11. Show us the “I have analyzed it”. Funny how you can’t cite something actually published….

                      Actually, not funny.

                    12. I am citing published work you moron. Hansen, et al. 1981. I posted the link 5 times.
                      LOOK AT IT YOU FUCKING MORON.

                    13. Still banging on about a 35 year old research paper?

                      The reason no one is looking at the paper is because it is 3 decades old and at this stage utterly, utterly, utterly irrelevant!

                    14. It is completely relevant and aleays will be. All the modifications correspons perfectly with CO2 concentrations.

                      All 4 independent [hahahahah) databases have been modified the same way.

                    15. So you have analyzed the chart on P961 of the geriatric report.

                      It shows approx. 0.5 deg C temp rise between 1880 & 1940 followed by a fall of approx 0.4 deg C between 1940 & 1970.

                      Here are the collected modern terrestrial charts:

                      https://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=http%3A%2F%2Fclimate.nasa.gov%2Fsystem%2Fcontent_pages%2Fmain_images%2F1309_Temp_anomaly.jpg&key=tQU3_OETqJ4TazpYud5dWg

                      They differ from the Hansen chart during the early C20th but the rise in temp between 1880 & 1940 is approx. 0.5 deg C, followed by a fall of approx 0.4 deg C between 1940 & 1970.

                      So basically two charts prepared 35 years apart separated by over 3 decades of scientific & computer technology development show very similar information.

                      This is what you have been wittering on about.

                      This is beyond idiotic.

                    16. Look it up… It’s on the NASA website. Look at the temperature chart. THis was right before he turned into a raving lunatic and started changing the record drastically. (ACtually he had already started probably.)

                    17. Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

                      Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

                      Evaluating Information

                      How to Evaluate Resources

                      The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

                      Research Process Rubric – Middle School

                      . . . .
                      0 points
                      Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and laced supporting evidence

                      https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

                    18. Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

                      Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

                      Evaluating Information

                      How to Evaluate Resource

                      The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

                      Research Process Rubric – Middle School

                      . . . .
                      0 points
                      Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence

                      https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

                    19. Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

                      Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

                      Evaluating Information

                      How to Evaluate Resources

                      The CRAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

                      Research Process Rubric – Middle School

                      . . . .
                      0 points
                      Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence

                      https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

                    20. “…communist butt buddy…
                      “https://disqus.com/home/discussion/climatedepot/no_global_warming_at_all_for_18_years_9_months_a_new_record_8211_the_pause_lengthens_again_just_in_t/#comment-2347415217

                    21. Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

                      Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

                      Evaluating Information

                      How to Evaluate Resources

                      The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib

                      Research Process Rubric – Middle School

                      . . . .
                      0 points
                      Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidenc

                      https://www2.uwstout.edu/conte

                  1. The deniers are just immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

                    “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

                    1. Yep… You are the satellite data denier… and you describe yourself perfectly… Congratulations.

      1. The evidence just keeps on mounting. Lot of evidence there in those dossiers.

        ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge

        Under pressure from shareholders, company promised eight years ago to stop funding climate denial – but financial and tax records tell a different story.

        ““In 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner,” Exxon said in its 2007 Corporate Citizenship report.”

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

            1. I was figuring that ‘snowball’ has convinced himself that he believes what he’s shoveling so it doesn’t seem so much a bribe. Then the acountants cut back on the payments….

                    1. You are just ignorant or you are a truly vile person that doesn’t care about the well being of others. And yes, you are out of bullets. Even Exxon knows it.

  9. Enviroliars have been trying to explain “the pause” for the last dozen years or so… now, funny enough, they’ve decided to just announce there was no pause. These guys have no respect for themselves.

  10. I’m going to dissect this post which the anti-capitalist JMAC troll down below keeps posting. Here is the link.

    http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

    It quotes an Exxon “scientist” giving a presentation. Apparently these neo-communists think this is some type of smoking gun because they are brain dead.

    “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels,” Black told Exxon’s Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later. It was July 1977 when Exxon’s leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis. A year later, Black, a top technical expert in Exxon’s Research & Engineering division, took an updated version of his presentation to a broader audience. He warned Exxon scientists and managers that independent researchers estimated a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles. Rainfall might get heavier in some regions, and other places might turn to desert.”

    Just like now… all of this is pure speculation. The past has been cooled more than present has warmed. UTTER GARBAGE.

  11. ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge
    Under pressure from shareholders, company promised eight years ago to stop funding climate denial – but financial and tax records tell a different story

    “Exxon funded the Mississippi senator Roger Wicker, who cast the single no vote earlier this year against a symbolic “sense of the Senate” resolution that climate change was real and not a hoax. The resolution passed 98-1. Wicker, who received $14,000 from Exxon, voted no.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

      1. Yes, Monckton makes that claim.

        No actual scientist says that, even the guys in charge of those satellites.
        That should give you a clue.
        Though I doubt it does…

        1. That’s because the guy in charge of satellits would probably get fired. The data is what the data is… and even the guy in charge of the satellites doesn’t have a good explanation… If he does… what is it? WHAT IS IT?

            1. Not every other week like the surface data. They are on rev 6. Surface record on rev. 6000… all in one direction. Whatever it takes to support global warming.
              Meanwhile sea ice stable. Antarctic ice stable. yada yada yada.

              1. Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

                Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

                Evaluating Information

                How to Evaluate Resources

                The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! https://www.gettysburg.edu/library/research/tips/webeval/index.dot

                Research Process Rubric – Middle School

                . . . .
                0 points
                Presented content which was unfocused, poorly organized, showed little thought or effort and lacked supporting evidence

                https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/middlelschresearchrubric.html

  12. Arctic Ice Volume about the same as 2007 according to PIOMAS. http://neven1.typepad.com/

    Arctic Sea Ice Area… about the same as 2005 according to DMI. (see chart below).

    Satellites show temperatures stable for almost 19 years. (see this article).

    https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

    Antarctic Sea ice reached a peak in 2014.

    Antarctica gaining ice overall.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/11/04/antarctica-ice-global-warming-climate-change/75155630/

    Despite all this, Climastrologists keep continually calling it the hottest month ever….

    The data tampering has been massive. Here is Hansen’s paper from 1981. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

    Look at what the temperature record looked like then. Compare it to what it looks like now. If ice is stable now, 1890’s must have been an ice age.

    1. What did they know? Don’t just put a link.
      We don’t know anything except that the temperature record has been mangled. And all the models have been way off.

        1. You are the one denying the satellite data, the sea ice data. The Great Lakes data.
          You still haven’t summarized for me, or anyone, what exactly Exxon knew….
          You are too stupid too even be able to write a scientific sentence. the best you can do is: I hate capitalism.

            1. Has he called you a communist yet? This guy is apparently some kind of wannabe understudy to Monckton, as you well know that is one of Moncktons fall back positions. 🙂

          1. Capitalism? Apparently far right wingers and their think tanks like the Heartland Institute think it is ok for a company or anyone to knowingly sell a product that they know can do harm (even cause death) to you and your friends. And use profits made from said product, to sponsor disinformation about the peer reviewed science warnings about the dangers of the product. They call that capitalism, especially when they get to have society pay for the damage done. The deniers are just immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

    2. Satellites = NO warming
      Surface Temp. Record = massively manipulated.

      Exxon doesn’t know squat…
      Climastrologists dont know squat.

      every model has been wrong… Just like AR5 showed.

      1. Hmmm, Chapter 9 says you are lying.
        Which would be a real good reason why you didn’t actually quote the source

        Previously spewed by planet8788, “…every model has been wrong… Just like AR5 showed.”

        1. http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/

          This increase in confidence in the main conclusions in the AR5 SPM seems unwarranted based on the text, figures and analyses in the main WG1 Report, and also in comparison with the conclusions from the AR4. Several key elements of the report point to a weakening of the case for attributing the warming of human influences:

          Lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancies with climate model projections
          Evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2
          Evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012
          Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent
          Low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming

          1. Ah, the unpublished blogging v the rest of the scientific community…
            Gee, so hard to decide..
            Wait, no.
            Evaluating Information

            How to Evaluate Resources

            The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

            CRAAP
            Questions to consider
            Currency

            When was the information published or last updated?
            Have newer articles been published on your topic?
            Are links or references to other sources up to date?
            Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?
            Examples:

            Outdated Information: http://www.vegsource.com/harris/b_cancer.htm

            Current Website: http://www.nytimes.com/

            Relevance

            Does the information answer your research question?
            Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
            Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
            Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?
            Examples:

            Questionable Depth:

            http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/popsci.html

            http://www.timeforkids.com/

            Authority

            What are the author’s credentials?
            Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
            Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
            Do other books or authors cite the author?
            Examples:

            Example of why you should examine the URL and the sponsoring organization:

            http://www.python.org/~guido/

            Example of a more reputable website:

            http://heinzhome.heinzctrinfo.net/index.html

            Accuracy

            Are there statements you know to be false?
            Are there errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar?
            Was the information reviewed by editors or subject experts before it was published?
            What citations or references support the author’s claims?
            What do other people have to say about the topic?
            Examples:
            Example of why sources should be verified:

            http://www.improbable.com/airchives/classical/cat/feline-nov2001.html

            Purpose

            Is the author’s purpose to sell, persuade, entertain, or inform?
            Is there an obvious bias or prejudice?
            Are alternative points of view presented?
            Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove the claim?
            Does the author use strong or emotional language?
            Examples:

            Examples of websites with possible bias:

            http://www.zip4tweens.com/

            http://www.beefnutrition.org/

            http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/

            Information used courtesy of University of Maryland University College Library and Creighton University Library; modified by Gettysburg College Musselman Library August 2012
            https://www.gettysburg.edu/library/research/tips/webeval/index.dot

              1. I believe that the emerging story of what Exxon knew, and when they knew it, shows that the differences have never really been about the science questions – even the major oil companies knew the basic science truths 4 decades ago. They simply made a moral decision that the lives of the next ten thousand generations of human beings were not as important as their own profits, and we are now witnessing the early impacts of that decision.

                At this point the deniers are just immoral creatures with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

                  1. Even Exxon knows it and Google says you are just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

                    Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

                    “The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

                    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/23/google-to-cut-ties-with-rightwing-lobby-group-over-climate-change-lies