Hadley Center to deniers: We are STILL warming

The top climate scientists at the UK’s Hadley Center for Climate Prediction get no respect. No matter how many times they try to explain that their data clearly shows the world is warming (see “Hadley Center to delayers: We’re warming, not cooling“), people, including those commenting on this very blog, keep insisting their data shows otherwise (see here).

As I wrote before, the 8 warmest years in the 150 global temperature record are, according to the Hadley Center, in order, 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2007. After the Hadley folk wrote a bunch of essays debunking standard denier myths (see here and below), they actually felt compelled to publish another piece on April 29 (here), pointing out again:

The global climate is currently being influenced by the cold phase of this oscillation, known as La Ni±a (see Expert speaks on La Ni±a). The current La Ni±a began to develop in early 2007, having a significant cooling effect on the global average temperature. Despite this, 2007 was one of the ten warmest years since global records began in 1850 with a temperature some 0.4 °C above average. Indeed, the years 2001-2007 recorded an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average, which is 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the years 1991-2000.

Another way of looking at the warming trend is that 1999 was a similar year to 2007 as far as the cooling effects of La Ni±a are concerned. The global temperature in 1999 was 0.26 °C above the 1961-90 average, whereas 2007 was 0.37 °C above this average – 0.11 °C warmer than 1999.

[Hadley doesn’t even mention we are at a temporary solar irradiance minimum, which subtracts “no more than about 0.1°C,” according to NASA (see “Hansen throws cold water on cooling climate claim.”)]


And the Hadley folk predicted last year in Science (see here) that short-term warming is about to accelerate (just as the recent Nature article did, see here), and they reiterated that prediction in their April 29 post:

Ten-year forecasts produced by the Met Office Hadley Centre capture this levelling of global temperatures in the middle of the decade; effectively La Ni±a has been masking the underlying trend in rising temperatures. These same forecasts also predict we will experience continued and increased warming into the next decade, with half the years between 2009 and 2014 being warmer than the current warmest on record, 1998.

All you “coolers” out their have continually rejected my offers of a simple bet that the 2010s will be warmer than this decade. I’ll even spot you 0.1°C or give you 2-to-1 odds — which is much more than generous. Needless to say, while many people repeat the Big Lie, few actually believe it enough to put their money behind it.

Let me end with the links to the “known facts about climate change” discussed by the Hadley folk:

  • Fact 1: Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it.
  • Fact 2: Temperatures are continuing to rise [duh!].
  • Fact 3: The current climate change is not just part of a natural cycle.
  • Fact 4: Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone.
  • Fact 5: If we continue emitting greenhouse gases this warming will continue and delaying action will make the problem more difficult to fix.
  • Fact 6: Climate models predict the main features of future climate.
  • Myth 1: The intensity of cosmic rays changes climate.

50 Responses to Hadley Center to deniers: We are STILL warming

  1. Lamont says:

    This will pass.

    The La Nina is ending and by summer we should be starting an El Nino event. That’ll push global temperatures higher by 2009 and we’ll probably break the 1998 record soon, without even having an exceptionally strong El Nino like that year. Then year after year we’ll start breaking the 1998 record.

    The pacific ocean will eventually do our argumentation for us.

  2. CoRev says:

    I try to be secular at my house, but from facts 1 through 4 we do not get fact 5, and fact 6 is unprovable.

    One additional fact I have learned over the past few weeks of reviewing most of the written materials on this subject is that almost any story (warming or cooling) can be shown in a graph (proven if you wish) from the existing data sets. Selecting the right starting and ending points and baselines will tell either story, and both will be correct.

    CoRev, editor

  3. Joe says:

    Sorry, CoRev — Your use of the term “secular” betrays your bias, as well as the prominence your site give to the web sites that spread disinformation.

    There is science — and then there is, don’t know what the best word is, “ideology” maybe. Science got us to the moon and back, gave us the transistor and the microchip, and it eradicated smallpox. Ideology gave us … well you can fill in the blank.

    Still, if I have to be lumped together under the pejorative “Believer Sources,” I’m glad to be with real climate scientists at RealClimate!

  4. Lamont says:

    CoRev, you need read more than just looking at graphs.

    Both sides of the debate can draw pretty graphs. You need to be able to assess the science behind the graphs.

  5. HumansFirst EarthSecond says:

    Big deal Joe. The current climate is well within the range of historic temperature variability. The earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age. It was warmer during the Middle Warm Period. The IPCC fraudulently tried to get rid of these “inconvenient” periods with the hockey stick graph.

    You are just mad because the earth has been cooling since 1998.

    As far as the Hadley Center is concerned, it was established by the AGW nutcase Margaret Thatcher. So we know their bias. If this AGW “crisis” goes away, so does much of the funding for the Hadley center.

  6. Lamont says:

    The Earth may have been cooling since 1998, but it has been warming since 1999.

    And comparing 1999 to 2008 is an apples-to-apples comparison as far as the ENSO cycle goes since both are La Nina years. Comparing 1998 to 2008 is not an apples-to-apples comparison since 1998 was a massively strong El Nino year. 1982 was the previous extremely strong El Nino year and the trend from 1982 to 1998 is up.

    If the trend continues by about 2012 we should be beating the 1998 value no matter where we are in the ENSO cycle.

  7. David B. Benson says:

    HumansFirst EarthSecond wrote “It was warmer during the Middle Warm Period.” Not true for the North Atlantic region. Quit just MSU (Making Stuff Up).

  8. Mark Shapiro says:

    To Kirk and others interested in the thorium reactor or LFTR idea (from previous threads):

    The New Yorker has a great article by Malcolm Gladwell about inventing in general and Nathan Myhrvold’s company Intellectual Ventures.

    They discuss the thorium reactor! And they’ve hired people to work on it; looking at a 15 year time frame. Kirk, are you reading this?

    Bottom line – LFTR possibly solves many of nuclear’s problems, so it’s yet another reason NOT to invest in any current nuclear technology.

  9. Mark Shapiro says:

    To David Benson re HumansFirst etc:

    Every time adults warn about some risk, like smoking, or drinking and driving, someone says, “don’t worry, they don’t know what they’re talking about, just do it”.

    You know, the old hippie argument.

  10. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    RE: Nukes have a really big CO2 footprint.

    Don’t get carried away with the dream of nukes saving the planet by not emitting GHG. I once read that if you add up everybit of energy required to build and operate a nuke, the amount of this energy is more than all the energy it will produce over its design lifetime.

    Consruction of a nukes requires an enormous amount of concrete and steel, and extremely expensive metal alloys for reactor and for primary and secondary heat exchangers as well as for the steam turbines and eletrical generators.

    For example, production of cement requires lime and certain types of shale. Lime is produced burning limestone in lime kilns. Both the limestone and shale have to be mined and trucked to the lime and cement kilns. Aggregate has to mined, graded and made squeaky clean by through washing with enormous amounts of water and then trucked to the concrete plant, where cement powder is mixed with aggregate, squeaky clean sand and water. The concrete then has to be trucked to the site. Squeaky clean means free of all dirt and organic matter.

    Unranium ore has to mined and refined and then enriched to nuclear fuel cell grade, and this requires humongous amounts of energy which in the recent past was suplied by cheap hydro power.

    The CO2 expenditure meter starts running when the board of directors of the power utility makes the decision to build the plant. All the CO2 produced during the construction of the plant plus the CO2 generated by the workers travelling to and from the site should be included in the tally. Even the CO2 generated in the design phase should also be included.

    The advantages of a nuclear power plant over a themal plant is that it can sited close to consummers thus reducing electrical power transmission losses and no emission SO2, NOx and heavy metal and particulate matter which are now greatly reduced in modern thermal power plants.

    Finally a CO2 charge will eventually have to added for decommisioning of the plant and the precessing and disposal of the spent nuclear fuel. This includes the CO2 for recovery of unsed uranium and for recovery of

  11. RE: Nukes have a really big CO2 footprint.

    Don’t get carried away with the dream of nukes saving the planet by not emitting GHG. I once read that if you add up everybit of energy required to build and operate a nuke, the amount of this energy is more than all the energy it will produce over its design lifetime.

    You’ve been deceived. Per kW*hr, conventional nuclear reactors have a tiny CO2 footprint compared to other baseload generation, and even compared to renewable sources.

    “I once read…”

    Read more than one thing.

    Nuclear waste disposal charges are already added to the electrical costs and have deposited $25 billion in a federal nuclear waste fund, most of which has been mismanaged and squandered by the federal government.

  12. They discuss the thorium reactor! And they’ve hired people to work on it; looking at a 15 year time frame. Kirk, are you reading this?

    Very interesting. They mention Myhrvold’s connection to Lowell Wood, who was the protege of Edward Teller. My friend Ralph Moir coauthored a paper on liquid-fluoride reactors with Teller shortly before Teller died:

    Take a look at the one called “Thorium fueled underground power plant based on molten salt technology” and the one called “Cost of electricity from Molten Salt Reactors (MSR)”.

  13. Kiashu says:

    This is why I hate nukers. They turn every discussion into a discussion of their favourite reactor design (varies between nukers).

    Joe, this sort of article unfortunately does not much good. The climate change deniers don’t base their denial on a rational assessment of the facts, or of the weight of papers analysing the facts. It’s not data in —> ideas out. Rather, they begin with an idea – “the Earth is not warming” or “the Earth is warming, but people are not responsible” – and take note only of any facts which might, with enough twisting and turning and squinting, support their idea. It’s ideas in —> twisted facts out.

    You’re assuming rationality, assuming a scientific process of (1) see data, (2) make hypothesis which explains data and (3) experiment, model and check to see if hypothesis matches data. But actually it’s (1) make hypothesis and (2) ignore everything which doesn’t support hypothesis. A bit like Pons & Fleischmann :)

  14. This is why I hate nukers. They turn every discussion into a discussion of their favourite reactor design (varies between nukers).

    What a criminal act. On a blog called “Climate Progress”, where we discuss how to save the Earth from the effects of CO2 emission, some have the audacity to discuss a series of technologies that could eliminate the major sources of CO2 emission.

    How dare they.

    These people should be hunted down and have their toenails pulled off.

  15. CoRev says:

    Joe, at least you looked at the site. But, you failed to prove your logic in your facts or disprove mine in my comment. Just pointed out a logical fallacy re: your facts. I, in fact, agree with 1 – 4, and know 5 and 6 are why there are skeptics.

    I’m not sure about your interpretation of prominence. As i find a site I add it to the links and then check them several times per day. The fact that there are more articles from one set is only because there are more articles. They will swing bak and forth depending on the activity level.

    I try not to be too redundant when multiples appear. That’s why I started the “Issue of the Day” column.

  16. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    Hello Kirk!

    Per kW*hr, conventional nuclear reactors have a tiny CO2 footprint compared to other baseload generation, and even compared to renewable sources.

    Show me the data! I doubt that it exists. Who has ever done an inventory of all the CO2 produced for absolutely everything and anything involved in the whole process up until the time the plant goes on line.

    Include all the CO2 emitted for the construction and operation of the uranium mine and of the mining equipment plus that emitted by the workers mining the uranium.

    Include all the CO2 emitted for the production of all the electrical stuff next to the plant.

  17. Show me the data!

    Go follow the links. Stop saying foolish things like “I heard once…”

  18. Tom G says:

    How much CO2 is emitted for the construction and operation of an open-pit coal mine in the Powder River Basin?
    Or a “knock-the-top-off-a-mountain” coal mine in Appalachia?
    How much CO2 is emitted by all those Union Pacific, NS, CSX and BNSF trains hauling that coal to the generating plants?
    And compared to a nuke, how much CO2 does an operating coal powered electric generating plant emit on a daily basis?

  19. Jonathan says:


    No, we start out with “the IPCC study is pure b.s.” Facts? The IPCC study has no basis in reality. The GCM’s are a pipe dream. The IPCC had a political agenda from its inception. The study is biased. The peer review is a joke. When lead authors are Greenpeace activists, all credibility goes out the window. All it is is “recycled” global cooling alarmism from the 70’s.

  20. Ed says:

    “HumansFirst EarthSecond”

    Is there any significance to that pseudonym?

  21. john says:


    Science works like this — you assemble all the facts at hand 9not just the ones you like); you develop a hypothesis from the facts (not starting with your favorite end in mind); test that hypothesis with experiments, models, and more facts (Not hold onto whatever believe you started with, no matter how non-sensical); revise the hypothesis as data suggests (not ignore disparities between reality and your pre-conceived notions), and continue until there’s enough proof to form a theory.

    That’s where we are in the real world with global warming. All the testing and checking we’ve done to date suggests the main revisons we’ve made with our projections is that global warming is coming faster and will be more severe than forecasts suggested.

    Bizarre rants, pseudo-scientific cherry picking, testimony from third rate novelists etc, doesn’t change these facts or this reality. They are immune to your prejudices, and impervious to your doubt.

  22. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    Hello Tom G!

    Ho much CO2 is emitted mining for gold, silver, diamonds rubies, emeralds, saphires etc. The enviros have given these energy gluttons a free pass. Every see an enviro sans jewelry?

  23. Bob Tisdale says:

    The only reason the hottest years in Hadley Centre data exist after the 97/98 El Nino is due to a mysterious step change in their SST data. To illustrate it that step, I subtracted the Smith and Reynolds SST from the HADSST data in the following graph.

    That step change is reflected in the Hadley Centre global combined (land and sea) temperature anomaly data, obviously, but that step exists in no other data set, not UAH MSU, not RSS MSU, not NCDC, not GISS.

    When the Hadley Centre explains or corrects that step, I and many others MIGHT trust their data again.


  24. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    Hey Joe and Lamont!

    The PDO is far more important than the ENSO, and it is now shifting into a cool phase that could last 60 years. The last warm phase of the PDO started in ca 1940 and lasted to 2000. At the Quatsino (BC) weather station, the mean Tmax for Sept 21 for the years 1995-00 was 19.5 deg C
    and 14.5 deg C for 2001-2007.

    I chose to look at Sept 21 for a quick and dirty check. For the sampling interval, the amount of sunlight is constant and there are equal amount of light and dark. Tmax is a measure of the sea breeze coming in from the vast Pacific Ocean. Quatinso is a very remote weather station located on the northwestern tip of Vancouver Island.

    One of the problems with using a monthly interval is the amount of sunlight changes by about 80 min. At this time of the year any effects of the ENSO are minimal. I going go to do analysis for each day of Sept.

    The mean Tmax for the years 1901-07 was 14.5 deg C.

    Stay tuned! And be prepared to dump all of your green stocks!

  25. Kiashu says:

    Joe, if you collect any more deniers you’ll have to rename your blog ClimateRegress. You’re becoming another TalkClimateChange.

  26. Joe says:

    Kiashu — No danger of that, I assure you. Fascinating to see what disinformation they are peddling these days, though.

  27. Nylo says:

    Let’s answer the facts from Joe:

    Fact 1 – “Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it” >>> definitely a YES.

    Fact 2 – “Temperatures are continuing to rise” >>> that’s a NO. If your fact is that there hasn’t been a colder year than 1999 in the following 9, then my fact is that there hasn’t been a warmer year than 1998 in the following 10. If you claim that I’m cherry-picking 1998 with a very severe El Niño, then I can claim that you are cherry-picking 1999 with a very severe La Niña. If you want to compare 1999’s temperature to some other year’s, do it with 2008 when it finishes. It’s in a similar situation so far, although 1999’s La Niña was even stronger. But let me tell you that, so far, 2008 is being colder.

    Fact 3 – “The current climate change is not only natural” >>> again a YES. But this is a copy of fact 1. Both give exactly the same idea.

    Fact 4 – (…) >>> Do you enjoy that much claiming different facts to the same one? Did you want to find many facts and couldn’t do better? You change the words and still the same idea is there: we play a part, natural processes are not alone. YEEEEES. Can we go on please?

    Fact 5 – “More GHG implies the warming will continue” >>> I can’t say YES here. NO. More GHG means that the human-caused PART of the warming will continue to increase. Whether the total warming will continue or will stop or will decay will depend on the rest of the factors, the natural ones. For us skeptics, they are quite more important, and because of that, we believe that we will see some cooling in the short-middle term.

    Fact 6 – “Climate models predict main features of future climate” >>> Again, that’s a NO. Climate models are created IN ORDER TO PREDICT those main features, but whether they do their function correctly or fail miserably will be seen in the future, definitely not now.

    Myth 1 – “The cosmic rays” >>> Following the link, I find that they say that it has not been proven. Certainly. A good correlation is not enough to prove any theory. Not even the CO2-induced warming theory. Still, the fact that it is not known to detail how it works is rather a point in favour of the skeptics.

    Now I would like you to comment about Fact 7: The troposphere, yes, that layer of the atmosphere which is supossed to warm a lot because of CO2 and water vapour, and because of it being really hot, it will emit infrared energy back to the surface, increasing the surface temperature. Well, it happens that the troposphere IS NOT really hot. Its warming in the tropics, which is where the GH effect is maximum, is similar to that one of the surface, or colder.

    My question, Joe, is this: how is the warmer troposphere going to warm us if, to begin with, it is not as warm as the models predict? And furthermore, how can the scientists who believe in the GH effect being the main cause of our future warming, not change their predictions even a little bit with the evindence that the troposphere is not as hot as it is supposed to be in their theory? We are not talking of just a fingerprint. We are talking of the basics of how the process of GH-induced warming works. Finally, is there any particular instance of any model run that correctly predicts nowadays’ tropospheric temperatures and, at the same time, supports a big global warming for the future?

  28. Joe says:

    Nylo — Sorry, it is warming. Facts are facts. I know this is a waste of time, but please point to peer-reviewed publications in support of #7.

  29. Tom G says:

    Answering a question with a question is not an answer.

  30. john says:


    Climate is not weather — climate trends are best measured in decades, not years. So your argument about whether to start with 99 or 98 can best be resolved by examining it in the context of what’s happened over the long term. If you look at centuries, then the answer gets idiot clear — the earth is warming, and that warming correlates quite nicely with anthropogenic releases of GHG.

    Then, too, there is that nasty reality of physical chemistry — GHG retain heat, and we can even do pretty fair stoichiometric analyses of what kind of warming a given amount of increased atmospheric increase in GHG concentrations should yield. Here again, what we’re seeing correlates pretty well with what we would expect. In other words, the theory comports with the facts.

    Sophistic cherry-picking of short-term temperature trends can’t change the facts, and you’d do well to peddle that pablum somewhere else. The audience on this site sees through that stuff.

    And Ken, a request of you. Please stop sidetracking every discussion with your idea fixe — thorium. It’s simply not relevant to this topic, and introducing it into the chain of discussion is not constructive. In fact, that kind of single mindedness probably does your issue a disservice — whereas your initial comments piqued my interest, I now wonder whether you should be assigned to the aluminum foil hat club.

  31. Jonathan says:


    Your argument concerning Fact 6, “Climate models predict the main features of future climate” is not with us deniers, its with your own kind.
    For IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth acknowledges:

    “there are no (climate) predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. Instead, there are only “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. None of the models used by IPCC is initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate.”

  32. David B. Benson says:

    Kirk — ‘Intellectual Ventures interested in nuclear-core designer and fission specialist.’

  33. jorb says:

    Thanks for the acknowledgment. (see second link in above story). If I’m so wrong, why will you not permit the link to the Hadley’s own data? If I’m so wrong, and Hadley are right in their interpretation, why is their data such a threat.

    Link provided again on the off chance that you’ll listen ;o)

    [Data is never a threat — I just deleted a whole bunch of nonsense you were claiming was data. It got caught up in it. In any case, the purpose of this post was to explain that the Hadley data clearly shows we’re warming.]

  34. Paul K says:

    While watching angels dance on the head of a pin is entertaining, maybe today’s NYT editorial Rethinking Ethanol will return us to more meaningful discussion.

  35. Joe says:

    Jonathan — sadly, you don’t understand what Trenberth was actually saying. If you did, you certainly wouldn’t be quoting it to defend your position.

  36. Nylo says:

    By the way, STILL warming… lol

    As I read somewhere else, if we warm a little more, we will freeze.

    April had the coldest global temperature anomaly since July 2004, which means… yes, you got it right!: the anomaly was colder than in January and February this year.

    Hello again Joe!

  37. Nylo says:

    In Joe’s article: “Another way of looking at the warming trend is that 1999 was a similar year to 2007 as far as the cooling effects of La Niña are concerned. The global temperature in 1999 was 0.26 °C above the 1961-90 average, whereas 2007 was 0.37 °C above this average – 0.11 °C warmer than 1999”.

    Sorry to have missed this the first time but… I beg you pardon? 1999 similar to 2007? The whole 1999 was in the middle of a La Niña episode which started by the middle of 1998, whereas 2007 still had some El Niño from 2006 in the beginning and only experienced some la Niña since september. 2007 is more similar to 1998 than to 1999 related to El Niño or La Niña characteristics.

  38. Joe says:

    Gosh, Nylo, why is it that I’m gonna listen to the limate scientists as to which years were similar, than you. P.S. 1998 was the most intense El Niño in decades, nothing like 2007.

  39. Nylo says:

    Look at the table linked above.

    1997’s El Niño had its effects over temperatures magnified in 1998, because there is a delay of about 7 months between the conditions in the Pacific ocean and how it affects global temperatures. The El Niño that they call 1998 (because its effects on surface temperatures were maximum in 1998) actually started in the Pacific in May 1997, quickly rised to an anomaly of above +2ºC by August 1997, showed its maximum in the temperatures of the Pacific in november and december of 1997 with an anomaly of +2.5ºC, and then decreased quickly until it became neutral in May 1998. Then, as soon as July, it quickly reverted to a strong La Niña which lasted until June 2000, encompassing the whole 1999.

    In relation to El Niño and La Niña ocurrences, 2007 is more similar to 1998 because both years begin with conditions in the Pacific showing an El Niño episode that had started 5 or 6 months into the year before, and both end with conditions in the Pacific showing a La Niña episode. The two are not the same, of course. 1997-1998’s El Niño was far stronger than 2006-2007’s El Niño. But it won’t make a comparison with 1999 good. Comparison between 1999 and 2007 because of similar La Niña – related circumstances is fatally flawed. 2007 shows La Niña in the pacific only in the end, and because of the delay it has over surface temperatures, it is unlikely to have affected 2007’s temperatures at all. 1999 on the other hand is fully inmerse in a strong La Niña episode that had started 6 months before in 1998. So it is fully La-Niña affected. And it was a strong one.

  40. Nylo says:

    By the way, I would like to have an explanation as to why one of my above posts, with a long response to John and to you, with reasoned argumantation and without any language abuse or disrespectful behaviour, has not passed moderation. That would never happen in Climate Audit.

  41. David B. Benson says:

    Nylo wrote “That would never happen in Climate Audit.” SOme blogs have high standards and some have low. :-)

  42. Nylo says:

    I’m done Joe, see you in 12 years, when I win the bet about arctic sea ice extension. Keep the censoring job, it’s the most efficient way to keep skeptics away and not spoil your AGW party.

  43. Joe says:

    Nylo — Some day you’ll actually read the terms of use on this blog. No censorship here. I let people publish disinformation once maybe even twice. I’ve been more lenient with you than just about anybody. Lots of people wanted you voted off the island — I even got a phone call. Sorry.

    Climate Audit is a website for deniers and delayers. It is a good place for you. I couldn’t be happier that I am not like them, that this blog is not a repository for long-debunked disinformation.

    I see you are posting on RealClimate. That is also a good blog for you, as they don’t mind debunking the same nonsense over and over again.

    There is no “AGW party” — there is only a purely preventable tragedy that people like you are helping to make inevitable.

  44. Nylo says:

    I just read them, Joe.

    [JR: “Although CAPAF has no obligation to monitor the Submissions, you acknowledge and agree that we may do one or all of the following: (a) monitor the Submissions; (b) alter, edit, or remove any Submission; or (c) disclose any Submissions.” I have previously explained I won’t keep allowing the same commenters with the same disinformation .]

  45. Paul K says:

    Is there any disinformation in the following?

    No peer reviewed rebuttal of the Douglas et al paper flailed at here and on RC

    No statistically significant change in global temperature over last eight years. The latest research indicates stability until 2015 or 2020.

    NASA studies that arctic sea ice decrease driven more by decadal ocean oscillation and specific wind patterns than by CO2

    [JR: Actually, that is pretty much all disinformation. The temperature stuff is embarrassingly wrong for anybody to claim, especially someone who regularly reads this blog. I Can’t believe you actually wrote “The latest research indicates stability until 2015 or 2020.” That is a debunked denier talking point if ever there was one.]

  46. Paul K says:

    The temperature stuff comes from Hadley and MSU websites. Stability projections come from Hadley and recently published paper by German climatologists. Are they too part of the denier machine? I have learned from reading this blog to base everything on official climatology and peer reviewed science.

  47. Joe says:

    Gosh, Paul, I didn’t know you could misread what I and others had written. Guess that’s my fault. Anyway, the Hadley people repeatedly state that their data shows the climate has been warming this decade.

    The Hadley Science paper does NOT suggest temp stability until 2015 or 2020. The exact opposite. Same for the German paper.

  48. Nylo says:

    Joe, you are really getting so much fun with all the censoring. Was there any disinformation in the long post I wrote and that you have changed to the single line “I just read it Joe”?

    I have proven to you (not to anyone else, as the post has been censored and nobody has been able to read it), that I have not broken any forum rule. I have referred you to several examples of other people breaking them. All you have answered is that the terms of conditions allow you to alter, edit or remove anything that is posted. Know what? Removing content that doesn’t violate any blog rule is called censoring. Which is what you claim not to be doing. Now you say that you warmed about eliminating disinformative content, but it is false. The first post you eliminated was without any prior warning or explanation and it didn’t contain any disinformation. I really got tired of this stuff. As I said, see you in 12 years.

  49. David B. Benson says:

    Nylo — The internet is just best-effort. With greatly increased traffic, it seems more and more messages to being tossed into the bit basket.