‘Skeptical’ ‘Science’ gets it all wrong – yet again

Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Even the name of the “Skeptical” “Science” blog is a lie. The blog is neither skeptical nor scientific. It is a malicious, paid propaganda platform for rude, infantile, untruthful, and often libelous attacks on anyone who dares to question whether global warming is a global crisis.

That poisonous blog has recently attacked 129 climate researchers, of whom I am one, for having dared to write an open letter to the U.N. Secretary-General asking him not to attribute tropical storm Sandy to global warming that has not occurred for 16 years.

The following are among the blog’s numerous falsehoods and libels:

1. On at least four occasions we are referred to as climate “denialists” – a term as unscientific as it is malevolent. We do not deny that there is a climate, or that it changes, or that the greenhouse effect exists, or that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases enhance that effect and may cause some warming. We raise legitimate scientific questions about how much warming Man may cause, and about whether attempted mitigation can ever be cost-effective.

2. It is claimed that our “preferred route” to air our “grievances about global warming is via “opinion letters published in the mainstream media” rather than via peer review. Yet most of the signatories named by the blog as having “no climate expertise” have published papers in the reviewed literature. To take one example named by the blog, Professor Nils-Axel Mörner of the University of Stockholm has published some 550 papers, nearly all of them in the reviewed literature, and nearly all of them on sea-level rise, which he has been studying for 40 years.

3. It is claimed that our arguments are “unsubstantiated”. Yet our letter offered a great deal of substantiation, as will become evident.

4. Tom Harris of the Climate Science Coalition, one of the letter’s organizers, is described as “best known for grossly misinforming … university students about climate change in a Climate and Earth Science class he should never have been teaching”. The only sources given for this grave libel are a farrago of childish falsehoods on the “Skeptical” “Science” blog and its sole citation, an error-ridden screed circulated by the dishonestly-names “Canadian Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism”.

5. The fact that there has been no statistically-significant global warming for 16 years is described as a “myth”. Yet the least-squares linear-regression trend on the Hadley Centre/CRU dataset favoured by the IPCC indeed shows no statistically-significant warming for 16 years. The minuscule warming over the period is within the margin of uncertainty in the measurements and is, therefore, statistically indistinguishable from zero.

6. It is claimed that we were wrong to say there has been no statistically-significant global warming because the oceans have warmed. However, the standard definition of “global warming” is warming of the near-surface atmosphere. Also, measurements to date are inadequate to tell us reliably how much – if at all – the oceans have warmed in recent years.

7. It is claimed that we were wrong to say that computer models are now proven to exaggerate warming and its effects. Yet we had pointed out, correctly, that a paper by leading climate modelers, published in the NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008, had said that 15 years or more without global warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models’ projections and real-world observations and that, therefore, the models were proven incorrect by their creators’ own criterion.

8. It is claimed that we were wrong to state that some scientists point out that near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is a distinct possibility. Yet some scientists have indeed pointed out what we said they had pointed out, though our use of the word “some” fairly implies there is evidence in both directions in the literature.

9. It is claimed that we used “careful wording” in saying that there is an absence of an attributable climate change signal in trends in extreme weather losses to date. Yet we were merely citing the IPCC itself on this point.

10. It is claimed that we were wrong to state that the incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. Though it is trivially true that temperature maxima have increased with warming, there has been no trend in land-falling Atlantic hurricanes in 150 years, and there has been a decline in severe tropical cyclones and typhoons during the satellite era.

11. It is claimed that we “falsely” accuse the U.N. Secretary General of “making unsupportable claims that human influences caused” tropical storm Sandy, and that “in reality, Ban Ki-Moon did not say climate change caused Hurricane (sic) Sandy”. Yet he had said: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane (sic) Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.” We had rightly written: “We ask that you desist from exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or properties in tropical storm Sandy by making unsupportable claims that human influences caused that storm. They did not.”

12. It is claimed that we are “a list of non-experts”. Yet half of the 129 signatories are Professors; two-thirds are PhDs, and several are Expert Reviewers for the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report.

One day, the useless “Skeptical” “Science” blog may perhaps have a curiosity value to historians studying the relentless, lavishly-funded deviousness and malice of the tiny clique who briefly fooled the world by presenting themselves as a near-unanimous “consensus” (as if consensus had anything to do with science) and mercilessly bullied anyone with the courage and independence of mind to question their barmy but transiently fashionable beliefs. The blog’s falsehoods have made no serious contribution to the scientific debate that we who are genuinely skeptical and truly scientific have by our patient endurance now largely won.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
richard

As I am not a scientist I would like someone in simple terms to explain the following,
The moon in the daytime with no GHGs gets to 250f in a few hrs and at night time the temps plummit.
By comparison it seems the earth is kept cooler by GHGs in the daytime and at night time with GHGs we see a slow cooling. Maybe a bad comparison but I notice the desert with low moisture content leads to high daytime temps and at night rapid cooling to freezing- similar effect as the moon.
So greenhouse effect, is this merely the ability of the earth with GHGs to slow down cooling.

richard

is seems to me that there is no problem in reaching high temps without GHGs – moon, or indeed lower amounts of GHGs- desert.

Excellent rebuttal. Does anyone actually read SkS any more?

Kev-in-Uk

I suppose it is good that someone bothers to visit that site(?) – and report back – but to be fair, I couldn’t bring myself to visit there ever again! IIRC, the dross being promoted there is quite poor (or certainly ‘was’ a couple of years ago) and one sided – but what struck me were how a large number of the comments reminded me of wailing infatuated schoolgirls fawning over their latest pop idol heartthrobs…

highflight56433

Bravo Christopher Monckton of Brenchley!

richard

poor old earth trying to maintain an even keel , takes me a few minutes to get my bath water the right temp, I keep over compensating- oops darn to hot again, darn now its too cold.
Its Christmas, having some fun!!!!

Kev-in-Uk

richard says:
December 4, 2012 at 6:32 am
Simply put – Its a two way thing, in essence, the earths’ atmosphere both slows down the rate of heating AND slows down the rate of cooling!

AleaJactaEst

that’s more like it Your Lordship…..”anyone with the courage and independence of mind to question their barmy but transiently fashionable beliefs.”
barmy – love it!! such an eclectically British descriptor.

Snowsnake

One of the most popular themes now on television is to have mindless zombies wandering around biting/eating people. No matter how many the protagonists kill there are always more. This is the way it is with the mindless passionate trolls who with no thought or education, much less expertise in a subject, type crap on their computer and hit send. One can keep knocking them down, but they arise and type some more. Anthony, you have developed this knocking them down into an art form.
And the information that you provide as you do so is greatly admired.

@Richard, there is an article on WUWT that could help answer some of your inquiry.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/the-moon-is-a-cold-mistress/

Tom

So sue. What’s hard here?

Frank K.

Could someone comment on who (or what organization) funds “skeptical Science”? I would like to know.
“Money is the root of all CAGW Climate Science.”

mpainter

If one tries to understand Skeptical Science by using science and scientific discourse as a frame of reference, one encounters serious difficulties in trying to account for what one sees in association with that place. If one takes the view that it is a propaganda mill, then everything falls into place and all is explained. That blog uses only enough science to cloak their real intent. John Cook has no regard for his reputation whatsoever, as viewed from outside the circle of virulent Greens that he preaches to. But this is politics, Australian style.

Ouch.
Monckton has left a mark with this post.
I think what I like is his eye for absurdity. He zeros in on the complete lack of logic, factual errors, and non sequiturs such as are found in Skeptical Science.
As Mr Watts has demonstrated over the past 10 or more years, considerable uncertainty swamps any meaningful ability to assess global temperature. Those darned error bars are just too big! When one couples the uncertainties with the ability to quantify storm intensity in the 16th and 17th Centuries, the conundrum of the lack of correlation between carbon dioxide, temperature, and storms is laid bare.
Skeptical Science seems to follow the usual pattern: do not deal with the data, make personal attacks. When those supporting AGW are LESS qualified than those asking for better data, one need not wonder about the intellectual integrity of AGW. AGW has no integrity.

tchannon

richard,
Put in simple terms: the surface of the moon changes wildly because the surface is dust in a high vacuum, which means it is a very good thermal insulator. Heat cannot get through either direction at all well and hence the very surface gets very hot when the sun is out (a month at a time, length of lunar day) and very cold at night (a month at a time).
Earth, Venus, Jupiter and others have in contrast a thermally bad insulator on the outside.

By comparison it seems the earth is kept cooler by GHGs in the daytime and at night time with GHGs we see a slow cooling.
==========
The surface temperature records show no increase in daytime maximum temperatures. It is the nighttime low temperatures that are increasing. When these two are averaged together, it creates the statistical illusion of warming.
However, what is actually happening is that the earth is becoming a more comfortable place to live. The days are no hotter and the nights are not as cold. The tropics are no hotter, it is the poles that are becoming warmer. In this respect the addition of GHG is acting like a thermostat to help better maintain the earth at a constant temperature.
We see this effect on Venus with its high CO2 atmosphere, where the planet is rotating so slowly that days and nights last the better part of a year. Yet on Venus there is almost no difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures. This is because CO2 “back-radiation” doesn’t just carry the energy back to the surface. It carries it sideways from the sunlit side of the planet to the nighttime side of the planet, making the night less cold.
So, to answer the National Geographic, what would happen if the earth stopped rotating; it depends on how much GHG there is in the atmosphere. Most likely there would be an increase in clouds on the sunlit side due to evaporation, and this would reflect much of the heat back to space. While on the nighttime side the increase in clouds would reduce the heat loss.
So, in this respect it could be said that without GHG, the earth would probably be much less hospitable for life than it is today.

Mmmm. Sliced and Diced Catastrophist for breakfast. — served cold after a proper roasting.
Anthony, a small suggestion: at the bottom of the Blogroll (a fitting place), you list as “Unreliable * ” the “poisonous blog” that is the subject of this feast for the eyes. Please add a point 3 to the asterisk note: “(3) numerous falsehoods” and link back to this page. I don’t want to lose the recipe.

UK Sceptic

Another fine missive, Your Lordship. May you continue to point out the fallacies sprayed about by the alarmists and enemies of science.

DaveA

They’ve got a strange post up now telling how _even_ skeptics believe in the green-house effect, with Christopher 1 of 13 such examples listed.
After the list it starts “For any remaining hold-outs…”, which implies the 13 listed skeptics have previously contended there is no greenhouse-effect. The kids can’t help themselves.
It’s a good feeling knowing that Skeptical Science have stamped themselves on public record as true believers of the warming cult. Give it a decade and they’ll be lining up at the deed poll office.
(make sure that Way Back Machine is making back-ups of their site)

Snowsnake

Of course I realize that the post was by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. But it is Anthony who sets up this target range. And the many others who take advantage of the targets keep the action flowing. Thanks to all.

john robertson

Much shorter version, the things SS gets right.

I do not like absolutes used in reference to anything scientific. That is an oxymoron. The only scientific absolutes are a few definitions, mostly from physics. You are other wise most correct about “Skeptical Science” in most if not all other references. “SS”, hum that is not an unfamiliar set of initials. I suspect the authors at “SS” believe propaganda and “the big lie” are the most appropriate way to spread their theology. They do have an inalienable right to be almost completely wrong. I for one find no offense in the term denier, if that is to mean I am am AGW atheist. It is a simple equation science = deductive reason and logic, theology = inductive reasoning and faith. I choose reason.

What is “skepical science” skeptical about? Are they skeptical that the climate changes naturally? Do they believe that the repeated ice ages and warmings are not natural cycles?
Are we to believe that Extreme Weather is the wrath of god visited on the earth for our sins? That god seeks to punish us for driving to work, heating our homes in winter, and cooling them in summer so that our children can prosper today and not be sacrificed to a future that may never come.
Are they denying that climate changes as a result of Nature, without any regard for Mann?
Why is it that it is the richest among us that are calling for the rest of us to sacrifice? What if everyone on the planet lived the lifestyle of Gore? Gore, who calls for women to have less children, while he himself has many. Gore, who calls for us to reduce, while he grows larger and larger in his mansion.
I propose we all take the “Gore Pledge”. “I pledge to consume no more than Al Gore.”

Camburn

Why even bother with what SS says? Anyone who has tried honest, peer reviewed literature discussions there is banned.
The traffic count there is so low that they are a non-existent site. Don’t give them credence.

tadchem

richard: In the laboratory we often use what we call a ‘constant temperature bath’ when we need to keep the temperature of some material or device from changing. It works by circulating a fluid in a container into which we immerse the device of interest. The fluid itself is heated or cooled as needed, with the need determined by a thermostat. It carries the heat (or cold) throughout the container, covering the exposed surfaces of the device.
The atmosphere works the same way, with air as the fluid, the sun as the heat source, and the night sky as the ‘cold source’. The main difference is that the planet does not have a thermostat; it evens its temperature out based on how fast it can absorb sunlight in the day and radiate heat at night.
The moon simply has no working fluid to do the job.
GHGs simply have a minor (differential) effect on how rapidly the air can absorb the sunlight. Most heat is transferred to the air by contact (conduction followed by convection) with the ground or the ocean, which are far more effective at absorbing heat from sunlight than the air is.
CO2 is only a minor factor in the heat absorbed by a minor component of the heat-absorbing system.

The committed require proof that they are overly certain, while the skeptical require only reasonable uncertainty to be uncommitted. This is the problem: a change of position requires quite different things for either side.
It’s as if warmists and skeptics were, respectively, dogs and cats: dogs regard all food-like objects to be edible until digestion proves otherwise, while cats consider mere appearance to be insufficient for any food-like object to be their supper.
Meow.

Anyone that pushes “AGW” is a nonbeliever in science, a skeptic of real fact. “Greenhouse Gas” as a concept was proved wrong in 1906 by Max Planck pg.

Mark Nutley

Everyone knows SS is a waste of bandwidth. Just ignore them, they are for the faithful only.

eco-geek

Quoting: We do not deny that there is a climate, or that it changes, or that the greenhouse effect exists, or that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases enhance that effect and may cause some warming.
This is the entire problem. We have warmists who believe in global warming. We have sceptics who believe in global warming. Therefore we have a broad media consensus that GHGs cause global warming. The differing views within this consensus can never be reconciled with each other or with the laws of physics BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH WRONG. By default the carbon crimes continue with the sceptics as guilty as the warmists.
Stay Cool!

The other Phil

Well done, as usual

Someone poiunted out years ago that if it’s in the name, then that’s likely the only place you’ll find it. Romantic comedies are rarely romantic or funny, the Progressives cling to tired, worn out ideas, and “Skeptical Science” doesn’t trust you to come to that conclusion yourself by reading the content.

trafamadore

Lord Monckton says: “To take one example named by the blog, Professor Nils-Axel Mörner of the University of Stockholm has published some 550 papers, nearly all of them in the reviewed literature, and nearly all of them on sea-level rise, which he has been studying for 40 years.”
Working on this post would take all week.
But, to the point of the second of 12 points, SkS didn’t say the signatories hadn’t “published papers in the reviewed literature” (although, Monckton, he hasn’t, right?), what SkS said was that they “air their grievances about global warming … through opinion letters published in the mainstream media.”
Um. What part of Harris’ writing an opinion letter to the secretary of the UN did he miss?
SkS point is that these “experts” should be answering the “debate” using science and peer review, the way that science experts usually do for a living.
But I think it’s remarkable that, to set the tone and trying to establish the legitimacy of his cosigners, Monckton refers to Mörner in this point. The Mörner that tilted a sea level graph on edge to make the point that sea level was not rising? That Mörner?
He could haven’t picked a better example to demonstrate SkS’s problem with his experts.

Greg House

Christopher Monckton says: “12. It is claimed that we are “a list of non-experts”. Yet half of the 129 signatories are Professors; two-thirds are PhDs, and several are Expert Reviewers for the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report.”
=====================================================
An “expert reviewer for the IPCC’s” is not necessarily a real expert.
According to the IPCC procedure, ANY person can register as “expert reviewer for the IPCC’s” on-line on their website and get a copy of the report to review.
“Expert reviewers” are simply volunteer reviewers, their reviews are not binding, and I guess, most of them will be thrown away without reading.

The only ‘trouble’ with SS is that so many deluded, useful idiots quote it as some type of ‘reference’ when discussing climate matters.
I tune out, mostly, when that happens; they then claim that I am discomfited by it’s perspicacity 😉

commieBob

“The blog’s falsehoods have made no serious contribution to the scientific debate that we who are genuinely skeptical and truly scientific have by our patient endurance now largely won.”
How come it doesn’t feel like we won? Every time I turn on the radio I hear some distinguished professor attributing the extinction of some small critter to climate change. This is followed by a heartfelt plea for all of us to cut our CO2 emissions. When will they quit?

trafamadore says:
December 4, 2012 at 8:39 am
Being a case in point.
The case I now rest (as others will tear him a new one)

Top notch post. Thank you!

Robin Hewitt

There is another possibility…
Perhaps there are two kinds of climate scientists. Those who like the challenge of explaining chaos and those who really wanted to be particle physicists but couldn’t quite do the maths, opting instead for a less demanding branch of science. Basically anyone who might accept them.
If your job requires you to understand things that are beyond your ability, you have a problem.
If you want clever people to do the work for you, you could do worse than expound a ridiculous theory and wait while they prove you wrong. When it is all sorted out, you show that your theory was the beginning of the process and share the accolades.
If you can pick up a few fat grants and the odd Nobel prize along the way, all the better.

John F. Hultquist

Richard & Phil,
This posting is about the
. . . malicious, paid propaganda platform for rude, infantile, untruthful, and often libelous attacks on anyone who dares to question whether global warming is a global crisis.
I did not see the Moon mentioned therein and, so I am surprised to find myself writing about it! What is measured thereon is a surface temperature, commonly called rock. Reference to Earth temperatures is usually an air temperature taken a few feet above the surface. However, explaining daily temperature changes on Earth needs to focus strongly on convection, not the so called GHGs.
Note that a “desert with low moisture content leads to high daytime temps and at night rapid cooling” is a statement that confuses several issues. Air masses that form above deserts are not devoid of moisture (unless it is a very cold desert – think Antarctica). In a subtropical region, say the USA’s southwest, where the solar input is high and water bodies few, the land heats and the water evaporates. In absolute terms, the humidity of the air is not actually low. In relative terms, it is. These things are discussed in basic earth-science texts under the headings of Air Mass source regions and their characteristics.

John V. Wright

Ah God, Christopher, I love your very truthful bones. Had the privilege of seeing your presentation on the cost of the pointless exercise of pursuing anthropogenic CO2 reduction strategies at Keele University last year; and the honour of you replying personally to me, via email.
Facts. They hate facts. They cannot ABIDE facts. But, of course, facts and the stream of history will ultimately do for their mendacious and childlike agenda. There are already significant ‘wobbles’ in the powers-that-be over the ‘team story’, even though ‘carbon’ taxes are required to achieve their agendas. You can fool some of the people all of the time etc.
Hats off to my fellow UK-based contributors, Kev-in-the-UK and UK Sceptic – we all laugh merrily at the achingly embarrassing coverage from BBC ‘journalists’. But the time is approaching for the BBC. And – there will be blood. It is now a question of ‘when’ rather than ‘if’.

mpainter

Trafamadore
I can see that you have not looked into Nis-Axil Morner’s credentials as a sea level expert, at which study he spent a lifetime. Also see his postings on his studies of the Maldives, starting in the 60’s. There are other surprises in store for you, concerning what he has to say concerning sea level studies as done by the global warmers, which see, if you have a mind to get informed. You would do well to start looking and thinking for yourself instead of parroting the phrases of the propagandists. By the way, what is the latest word on the Maldives? I can tell you. All of a sudden the sea level stopped rising when they got themselves a new president. The panic mongering drove away investors, so now the sea level there is falling. How about that! Whom do you believe? I believe Morner.

G. Karst

Like AGW, the only thing that will eliminate the deviously named SS, is a long and protracted cooling. I would rather live with their lies, than survive the world malstorm, that cooling would bring. Warming by comparison is a pleasant walk in the park. GK

richard

Ferd Berple- We see this effect on Venus with its high CO2 atmosphere, where the planet is rotating so slowly that days and nights last the better part of a year. Yet on Venus there is almost no difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures. This is because CO2 “back-radiation” doesn’t just carry the energy back to the surface. It carries it sideways from the sunlit side of the planet to the nighttime side of the planet, making the night less cold.
I thought that Venus was classed as a new planet and as such the mantle had not hardened so interior heat -vast- over the whole planet was rising. I read that it is thought that the whole surface erupts, basically the earth in its earliest days, explaining the heat temps.

I can’t stop laughing at the euphemisms for “it falling apart” in this greenpeace article and I hope others appreciate it:
We are well into the second and final week of the UN climate talks in Doha, but the outcome is still far from certain. Almost all major negotiation topics remain and we see little progress on overarching objectives. Ministers arrived this week to pick up the mantle. They must improve the negative trend.http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/doha-climate-talks-ministers-must-improve-neg/blog/43245/
Hide the decline? Improve the negative trend! It’s amazing the nonsense they people talk.

Global Warming most certainly does exist. Ever since man learned to make fire, as soon as temperatures didn’t suit him he would burn wood, coal, gas, or oil to warm his surroundings. Now there are over 7 billion people on the planet, each heating their domiciles, their office buildings, their shopping centers by burning wood, gas, coil, or oil, or converting electricity into heat. And all this heat escapes into the world at large. No matter how small an effect, it most certainly does contribute to the “average” temperature of the planet. No humans: no burning: no added heat.
Yet the earth doesn’t melt nor have run away heating. Why? Because the collective effect of all those people warming themselves (and therefore the world) is small in relation to the overall energy budget of the planet, and obviously the planet’s “thermostat” can handle that additional heat.
At what point do you worry? How much extra heat can be liberated by all those people before the permafrost melts and glaciers melt and sea levels rise? This is were imagination runs wild because nobody knows. For me the fact that the planet is here after 4.5 billion years with a stable climate that’s rather pleasant after surviving asteroid impacts, mass extinctions, floods, volcanism, etc. means it is far more robust than a few puny cavemen sittings around a campfire can alter.

Peter Miller

Presumably, Monckton brings up the number of SS’s regular readers into double figures.

Jimbo

2. It is claimed that our “preferred route” to air our “grievances about global warming is via “opinion letters published in the mainstream media” rather than via peer review.

I wonder why?

Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [TRENBERTH] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

7. It is claimed that we were wrong to say that computer models are now proven to exaggerate warming and its effects. Yet we had pointed out, correctly, that a paper by leading climate modelers, published in the NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008,….

And here is something else just off the press.

“The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes. The likely causes of these biases include forcing errors in the historical simulations (40–42), model response errors (43), remaining errors in satellite temperature estimates (26, 44), and an unusual manifestation of internal variability in the observations (35, 45). These explanations are not mutually exclusive. Our results suggest that forcing errors are a serious concern.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf

And if the lack of warming continues into next year we have another paper.

A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml

10. It is claimed that we were wrong to state that the incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased.

Global FAIL.

Tim

A real “Mann” would sue skeptical science for libel ;). However there is no need to do so as they foolishly shoot themselves in the foot for making absurd claims. More importantly when is the MSM going to start doing their job and expose these frauds.

artwest

philjourdan says: “Does anyone actually read SkS any more?”
—————————————
Unfortunately I’ve often seen warmists on sites like The Guardian “rebutting” an inconvenient comment by linking to SkS. No doubt some of the uninitiated will be swayed by their drivel – especially given the misleading title of the site.

Werner Brozek

5. The fact that there has been no statistically-significant global warming for 16 years is described as a “myth”.
It is worse than that! To the nearest year, there has been no warming at all for 16 years, statistical or otherwise, on several data sets.
Data sets with a o slope for at least 15 years:
1. HadCrut3: since April 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to October)
2. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
3. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 10 months (goes to October)
See the graph below to show it all.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/plot/rss/from:1997.0/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1
However we can go back 18 years to show no statistical warming, even on data sets not mentioned above, and no cherry picking of dates is needed either as another blogger has shown on a different blog, parts of which I will copy below. Thanks!
spvincent says:
December 2, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Taking the Hadcrut4 dataset, here are the trend values in degrees C/decade over five closely-related time periods.
1995-2012 +0.109 +/- 0.129
1996-2012 +0.107 +/- 0.129
1997-2012 +0.058 +/- 0.142
1998-2012 +0.052 +/- 0.153
1999-2012 +0.095 +/- 0.162
Let’s look at a satellite-derived dataset (UAH)
1995-2012 +0.139 +/- 0.203
1996-2012 +0.138 +/- 0.227
1997-2012 +0.106 +/- 0.252
1998-2012 +0.063 +/- 0.153
1999-2012 +0.179 +/- 0.262