Let us face it, They don't know, and at the rate they are going, we may never know for sure. James Hansen, a known activist, has been caught cooking the books. East Anglia has been caught cooking the books. The data is so corrupted in favor of AGW that even if it officially did rise as fast as Hansen predicted, no one in their right mind could believe it.
Even with the corrupted data, we see a small decline in temperature over the last decade and more. Even James Hansen and Phil Jones admitted as much. So In direct answer to your question, Yes, it is true that temperatures aren't rising as fast as James Hansen would like for them to rise.
EDIT: < James Hansen said Obama only had so much time to save the world > Jimmy also said, and echoed by Al Gore, that we only have till 2008 to stop AGW. That was before Obama was President.
I wish he would make up his mind.
Suppose I tell you that Mt. Everest is 8848 metres high. You go to test this by climbing Everest with an altimeter. It's a really foggy day but you start climbing anyway.
And you notice that your altimeter is getting higher and higher ... and then at 4234 metres it stops rising. You keep walking and it starts to read 4230 metres. And you walk a bit further and the altimeter says 4200 metres. You turn around, come back and say 'actually, Liz, Mt. Everest is only 4234 metres high because the data starts to drop after that'.
What would have happened if you'd kept walking? Well, you'd have seen that, actually, Mt. Everest was much higher than you thought but you'd not walked enough. You've made a conclusion based on incomplete data.
The same applies to the temperatures. At the moment they appear to be level after a climb. Does that mean they'll increase again? And if you say 'no' then you have no evidence to back that claim up. So how can we be sure? Well, obviously, we need to keep 'walking' or, in other words, take more data. If we find the temperature drops and drops and drops then AGW is gone. Goodbye to that theory. If we find it starts to rise again then we'll be happy we didn't draw a conclusion too soon and AGW survives to fight another day. And if it keeps rising, then we'll think 'well, that levelling off was a blip, and we'll have to understand why it happened'.
We need to keep taking data and let the results form our conclusions. Drawing conclusions prematurely isn't a sensible thing to do. Fifteen years might sound a long time, but even within those fifteen years the temperature rises and falls. If I look at 2004, the temperature was lower than 2005. Does that mean the temperature is rising? Or have I just looked at too narrow a number of steps?
Most people with open minds have either known or at least suspected the whole thing was a nightmare scam dreamt up by those with vested interests.
The warmists love the sort of tactics to which you ironically refer which is one sure sign they are lying!
Unfortunately many people will believe almost anything and if they are frightened - which was the main thrust when this whole business started - they lose what capacity for rational thought they ever had. They just want the source of the fear to go away; if you tell them the only way is to ruin their country's economy with punitive and daft measures and taxation, they'll unquestioningly agree.
Then there's all the fiddling with figures, computer modelling and attempts to pretend the medieval warm period did not exist....hardly what you'd expect from credible scinece.
Ahh but there's gold in them thar hills!
According to NASA the average temperature of the planet has only risen 0.5-0.6 Celsius since 1880. There have been 2 natural El Nino events since then. The most recent one caused a 1 degree spike in the average global temperature. It's not hard to see that climate alarmists use this rise in temperature to perpetuate their false claim of human induced warming. CO2 has limits of warming the atmosphere as shown here: http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-tec...
Without this most recent El Nino event there would be absolutely no measurable warming to the planet.
Yes. There is a lot of evidence to show that average world temperatures are leveling out, and that they won't rise any higher than they have many times in the Earth's history.
As far as I know you generally have to look at longer periods than ten years in order to see whether it's going up or not - ie it can fluctuate significantly and ten years isn't long enough to observe the broader trend.
Australia just had the hottest summer on record, and general consensus is that it's heating up, so I'm skeptical that temperatures have actually decreased in the last ten years, maybe it's just in the USA or something.
It's easy enough to check, there are several world weather monitoring centres and they all show no warming for at least 16 years and a very slight cooling for the last 9 years. So if you're not offended by facts and real world evidence dishing your green religion then check it out.
Yes they have stopped rising, and in fact the southern hemisphere has cooled a bit.
Yes they have stopped rising, and in fact the southern hemisphere has cooled a bit.
I am waiting for when they blame Global Cooling on climate change.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html
Or are deniers trying to confuse me with facts? They also tell me that temperatures are trending BELOW Hansen's scenario C prediction (NO increase in GHG after 2000)
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/hansen-1988_annotated.png
It looks to me that since we're trending BELOW Hansen's best case scenario that CAGW has been extremely exaggerated. Should I just pretend the evidence doesn't exist and say to deniers "You're lying" and "You just don't understand science" to rebut their factual statements?
