I mean 97% of climate scientists admit to a pause, why wont these deniers

The pause causes cognitive dissonance so it must be ignored by those who are all-in on climate change.

A great example (of cognitive dissonance) occurred today in a tweet by Dana1981. He stated that Sacramento beat its hottest day in January and followed with the hashtag #YearWithoutWinter. Ouch, things must be going badly in Nuccitelli land.

They still say there is no pause because we have some of the warmest years on record, and that the trend is still positive if you go back far enough. All this means is that the current year's temperature is warmer than the temperature from X years ago. So you have ongoing warming of a multi-year average. They fail to see that this means temperature can stay flat for a long time, and you can still claim it is still warming, unless temperatures return to their long term average. Well, the person who originally made the claim no doubt sees it, but the followers who repeat it perhaps not.

Wattsupwiththat has lost the benefit of the doubt when it was revealed by Trevor that they rewrite articles submitted by climate scientist and still keep the name of the scientist on them. The same Trevor wo is predicting a cooling for this decade because of the Asian brown cloud.

But what are you hoping to achieve? The science of what CO2 does in the atmosphere is well understood, as are some of the feedbacks, all of them indicate that AGW will affect climates and thus things like agriculture and sea level rises. Now there are two sane options, remove the additional CO2 from the atmosphere to stop AGW or to adapt, both cost money and it seems to me it is cheaper to deal with CO2 then climate change.

As long as those of us who dump the CO2 in the atmosphere promise to pay for the relocation of cities and populations because of AGW, I don't mind the dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere. On the economic side of things, the problem as I see it is that the fossil fuel companies want to privatise the profit while making the issue of dealing with the consequences every one else's problem. Capitalism is a beautiful economic system, but without ethics and empathy it will fail.

Kano... why do you continue beating this? The 'pause' is in the surface measurements. Not the entire system. The energy balance still exists. More energy is still in the system. You like to just close this off and ignore it as does everyone else who talks about a 'pause' in here. Why is this? It is extremely frustrating to see you post the same exact question almost daily. and people labelled 'deniers' wonder why realists call them names. It's because you are frustrating and do not listen to reason no matter how many times we have to explain it repeatedly.

GraphicConception: you need the energy data for the entire industrial revolution while the 'pause' you only need the data from 1998? You seem to argue a lot about fallacies yet you make them in spades.

Kano: You have demonstrated you are very anti-science yet you claim to be interested in the truth. I show you the data and you ignore it and continue on with your charade. I show you the energy imbalance, I show you heat content, I show you ice mass loss, yet you can't grasp where that energy is going. Why is that? Over the time period of your claimed pause the energy imbalance still exists.

http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.or...

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/...

Yet you can't seem to grasp the truth because you would rather believe in conspiracy.

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/semi...

And perhaps you can tell me exactly what specific satellite data sets you are talking about.

http://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/data-sou...

GraphicConception: You are the one making the fallacious argument not I. Measurements have shown an increase in energy since 1998, when you are claiming this 'pause' started. You are attempting to write off that data because you are making unrealistic demands and attempting to call victory based on that. And believe it or not, people have been looking into natural variation for quite a long time now. Just because you haven't seen it displayed on your media of choice does not mean it has not. Especially when your media of choice is horribly biased.

Historical trends and data of the SO: http://fishbull.noaa.gov/76-3/quinn.pdf

Historical PDO anomaly: https://www-old.marum.de/en/Page11830.ht...

And I have always argued that the energy in the system is what matters. I have never changed that argument. You claiming I have does not make it so.

The ozone 'hole' isn't actually a hole it is an area of ozone that falls below 220 dobson units. It does this during polar winter because ozone is made in the stratosphere via interactions with solar radiation. This has been well known. Again, just because your media of choice does not state this is so does not mean it is truthful.

I think it is self-preservation.

If you admit to a pause then someone might ask you to explain it. Consensus science does not have a definitive answer yet so they could give the wrong one. This might be held against them later.

Plan B is to deny it. That way, because it is not happening, they don't have to explain it. It has worked since 2002 (or halfway through 1996 for RSS).

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/fro...

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

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/fro...

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

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4...

Or a 25 year pause in the Central England Temperatures:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a0105...

You are right, it does prompt the question: Who are the real deniers?

EDIT: Alph - Yes, global average surface temperature anomaly is what we are talking about. So we are all agreed then - it has paused. If you want to talk energy instead then we need the energy data since the Industrial Revolution to compare.

How long term were you thinking, 10,000 years? http://tinyurl.com/qcrukoy

EDIT @Jeff M: I think my point is fair. If we have a temperature-based explanation for every year since the Industrial Revolution, then if you move the goalposts to say that energy is really the important parameter then we should re-examine the history to see if energy explained the observations.

This subject area does have a history of ignoring the past. Think of the ozone hole. When it was discovered it was declared bad. Had there always been a hole? No-one knew - but it was bad now. What about "natural variation". First it could be ignored then it caused cooling. What did it do before? No-one had thought to look. If you discover a new effect or parameter should you not apply it to the past and see how that changes the data and confirm that the models and hypotheses still agree?