As we all know, the talking points from Warmists, like the good little Progressives they are, are dictated by the circumstances. There are no hard facts, no consistency. Hence
(UK Daily Mail) Government environmental measures may already have helped to slow down global warming, an energy minister has claimed.
Baroness Sandip Verma said the rate of warming might have decreased, which could support the effectiveness of green policies. (snip)
Lady Verma told him: ‘You raise a couple of issues that we would dispute in a longer debate, but what we do recognise is that there a change in weather patterns happening across the globe, that climate change is occurring.
‘It may have slowed down, but that is a good thing. It could well be that some of the measures we are taking today is helping that to occur.’
Had to break out the Fozzie Bear.
BTW, let’s not forget that the UN IPCC 5th Assessment, soon to be released, will validate that there has been no statistically significant rise in global temperatures in 15 years. Other real world data measurements show it anywhere from 18 to 26 years.
Proving that some politicians are as clueless as Deniers. So what’s your point?
She said the apparent slowdown may have been caused by public actions. Yet, the CO2 concentrations have not been dropping. The oceans are soaking up heat, 2014 will likely be the warmest year since we’ve been keeping records – which would make it the warmest year during the Holocene.
The article quotes economist Ross McKitrick with a graph of his purporting to show no warming since 1995! Can anybody tell what line-fitting paradigm he used? And why do you suppose he picked 1995 as his starting point and not 1996? Look at the graph carefully. What would the slope look like if economist McKitrick drew a line from the 1996 nadir to 2013?
And despite the continued increase, there’s a pause in contradiction of Warmist computer models, hysteria, and talking points
Not in the deep oceans. Real world data actually blew that talking point away. And real data for mid level and sea surface is minimal for warming. Nothing that can’t be explained as normal nature.
Not if you look at the actual data sets from satellites.
Seriously? You think this could be the warmest year of the last 11,700 years? You’ve got proof how? In fact, the IPCC used to admit that it was warmer during the previous 2 warm periods.
Keep trying, little buddy. And give up all use of fossil fuels if you’re so concerned.
“Warmest year during the Holocene?” As you alluded to above, that’s total BS, as comparable data to be able to say “warmest or coldest year on record” only goes back to 1880 or so, when thermometers came into use.
Little buddies,
So you no longer trust the paleoclimate data? That’s strange since you use prior warm and cold periods as evidence to refute AGW. But that’s right, you rely on WUWT and the Hockey Schtick for your raw data, lol.
Your reliance on “satellite” data corresponds to the RSS outlier data, lol. The satellites measure radiation which is modeled by computer into temperature. The original satellite dataset, the UAH (Drs. Roy Spencer and John Christie) was shown to be flawed based on its computer modeling and had to be corrected. Bummer. On the other hand, the thermometer is an old and trusted technology and supplies real world data.