The Guardian in 2009 predicted five years of rapid warming:
The world faces record-breaking temperatures as the sun’s activity increases, leading the planet to heat up significantly faster than scientists had predicted for the next five years, according to a study.
The hottest year on record was 1998, and the relatively cool years since have led to some global warming sceptics claiming that temperatures have levelled off or started to decline. But new research firmly rejects that argument.
The research, to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, was carried out by Judith Lean, of the US Naval Research Laboratory, and David Rind, of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Fail. Five more years of no warming followed.
Professsor Ross McKitrick says in a new paper that the warming pause has now lasted an astonishing 19 years at the surface and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere:
The IPCC has drawn attention to an apparent leveling-off of globally-averaged temperatures over the past 15 years or so.... Here, I propose a method for estimating the duration of the hiatus that is robust to unknown forms of heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation (HAC) in the temperature series and to cherry-picking of endpoints…
Application of the method shows that there is now a trendless interval of 19 years duration at the end of the HadCRUT4 surface temperature series, and of 16 – 26 years in the lower troposphere. Use of a simple AR1 trend model suggests a shorter hiatus of 14 – 20 years but is likely unreliable…
While the HadCRUT4 record clearly shows numerous pauses and dips amid the overall upward trend, the ending hiatus is of particular note because climate models project continuing warming over the period. Since 1990, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose from 354 ppm to just under 400 ppm, a 13% increase…
In the surface data we compute a hiatus length of 19 years, and in the lower tropospheric data we compute a hiatus length of 16 years in the UAH series and 26 years in the RSS series.
This is “the science”. Why do warmists keep ignoring it?
(Via the ever-excellent Watts Up With That.)
@this-one-time-at-bandcamp wrote:And yet, rising seas have necessitated the evacuation of a number of Pacific Islands, the ice sheets at the South Pole are decreasing, the glaciers are receding............but still the deniers will continue to deny until the waters close over their mouths.
Just a teeny weeny question, could you post links and proof of what you say because I can't find anything that remotely even comes close to what you have said.
Now I know "global warming" is a religion and I woldn't want to offend but just saying stuff doesn't make it true. 
"Global Warming" and when that didn't fly King Rudd did a runner from it faster than those r f Chinese he so loved to slime. and in the process hoist himself on his own petard.
Then we get "climate change" much more warm and fuzzy, all the better to swindle billions out of the believers.
Then we get " warming Hiatus" the longest hiatus in the history of the world I rekon.
Then we got "Ocean warming" well that only lasted a week or so.
Then we got the Maldives going under and after they got billions from the EU carbon trading robbery cartel they immediately built more hotels and bungalows right on the shoreline.
I have lost count of what they are re branding their pet religion now but you can bet it'll be some hare brained oxymoron cobbled up like "climate Gate" boy didn't that work out well for them.
Then we were served up Ms Wongs 5 METRE sea rises by 2020 then she downsized it to 30 cms or something.
Really looking forward to the next V.I. Convention to see what's next from the true beliebers.
Really looking forward to my "Watermelons" book being delivered by wispernet to my Kindle. 
Why my mum doesn’t believe in global warming
On Saturday, my mum said she doesn’t know what to think of global warming:
You hear one thing, one day, and the opposite, the next.”
Here’s an example of why that happens…
A biologist from the University of Queensland said the Bureau of Meteorology doctored data
Dr Jennifer Marohasy claims the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) doctored some old temperature data, to make it fit with theories of global warming.
The Australian wrote 4 stories about it
Over the last 9 days, The Australian has dedicated 4 stories to the claim:
- Bureau of Meteorology ‘altering climate figures’ – Aug 23
- Heat is on over weather bureau ’homogenising’ temperature records – Aug 23
- Climate records contradict Bureau of Meteorology – Aug 27
- Weatherman’s records detail heat that ‘didn’t happen’ – Aug 30
So my mum didn’t know who to believe
Confronted with yet more claims denying global warming, my mum became even more confused. Who should she believe?!
But the BoM didn’t doctor the data!
According to the BoM, what actually happened is some temperature stations were moved inland to a cooler location, a few decades ago. So they ‘homogenised’ the data from those stations, to account for the move. This is an accepted, peer-reviewed method (unlike the IPA’s accusations).
But if that’s not enough for you, there’s also the fact that it’s the only one of their data sets that’s been homogenised. In the graph below (which includes satellite temperature data too), it’s the yellow line. Looks pretty much the same as the rest, doesn’t it?
Comparison of 18 different sources of temperature data between 1911 and 2010 including from adjusted and unadjusted data and from analyses from international authorities. Photograph: Bureau of Meteorology, Australia (via The Guardian) Then why the accusation against the BoM?
The person making the accusations is Dr Jennifer Marohasy. Here’s a bit about her:
- She switched from research to management in 1997.
- She spent 6 years working at the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a lobby group for big businesses like News Ltd, BHP, Western Mining, Monsanto, big tobacco, and the fossil fuel industry.
- She’s a foundation member of the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF), which, among other things, lobbied to have 70,000 hectares of World Heritage listed Tasmanian forest de-listed.
- Her research is funded by a Perth-based climate science sceptic, and long-standing IPA member, Bryant Macfie. He gave the University of Queensland $350k (facilitated by the IPA) to pay for environmental research scholarships, claiming science had been corrupted by a “newer religion” of environmentalism. At the time, Macfie owned 634,846 shares in a mineral exploration company called Strike Resources.
- She’s even spoken at a Heartland Foundation event in the US. (They’re the mob that claim carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant at all, and that it’s good for us!)
And why would The Australian push the story?
The Australian is owned by Rubert Murdoch. He’s a donor and outspoken champion of the IPA. In fact, his dad, Keith, was one of the its founders (p.2). In other words, he’s a key part of the same club as the big mining and fossil fuels companies, and their rich owners.
Not hard to see why my mum was confused, is it?
For better or worse, many people trust The Australian. So when it suggests global warming isn’t real, people tend to believe it, or at least wonder. They don’t know or research the real story, they just take it at face value.
This is a deliberate tactic used here and in the US to muddy the waters of environmental debate and policy-making. Michael Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, explains it like this:
Every once and a while there’s some contrarian paper that gets published in a journal and immediately the climate change contrarians trumpet this new study and it gets air-time on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, and inevitably — in almost every case that I can think of — the study turns out to have been fundamentally flawed. But it may take a year before a peer-reviewed article assessing that particular study is published. It takes time for scientists to independently look at the data, test the hypotheses, and either replicate or refute an analysis in a previously published article… But it becomes very easy for those looking to throw doubt and confusion into the picture to select some late-breaking study, take it out of context, milk it for all it’s worth and neglect the fact that there’s a much larger body of scientific research upon which our understanding is based.”
Or, put another way, throw enough mud, and some of it’s gonna stick.
http://www.glennmurray.com.au/why-my-mum-doesnt-believe-in-global-warming/
