before climate models could be doubted

http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-010-476.pdf

The Alarmists sure don't care about the facts. To them, the facts are the enemy, so yes, they will ignore the paper. Or they will slander the author, or make some new excuse or all of the above.

The Alarmists are heavily invested in this SCAM, there is no lie they are unwilling to tell.

The only way this scam stops is to cut all of their funding, then the screeching would stop almost overnight. They are surely not going to spend THEIR money to keep this scam alive. But for as long as taxpayers are sending them train loads of money to keep this fraud alive, they will do exactly that.

-----------------------

And yet the oceans are warming. Where's this hiatus you speak of? Oh wait, it only exists if you ignore the liquid that covers the majority of the earth's surface. And then you claim the 'alarmists' cherry-pick?

"If you don't check my link I will be forced to block you and to report this question as a violation of the Q&A format "

Spoken like a true alarmist. You people really do hate free speech, facts and reality don't you?

(a) Since the 2000s are warmer than the 1990s, and thus far, the 2010s are looking to be warmer than the 2000s, there really isn't a "pause". There are distorting influences, but clearly it's getting warmer. In fact, from your paper:

"The warming signal arising from slow, human caused changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases

is embedded in the background ‘noise’ of natural climate variability. Yet much of the recent public discourse on the reality of a discernible human influence on global climate reflects pervasive confusion regarding the distinctions between short term climate variability and long term climate change."

It's getting warmer. That's what your quoted source says.

"at least 17 years" is a lot different than "longer than 17 years" Maybe you should learn the difference between the two. The 'pause' must last long enough for the long term trend to become statistically significant.

Don't trust a liar like Madd Maxx. And would you please actually check my link. If you don't check my link I will be forced to block you and to report this question as a violation of the Q&A format

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...




OK! You did read my link. But a much more reliable source for the "full story" can be found here

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

Madd Maxx

You obviously are not confident that realists won't give a good answer to this question.

https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/in...

By blocking realists, we win the argument on the ground that you forfeit.

before climate models could be doubted

http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-010-476.pdf