Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Wilikon]

Can you name a single respected scientific organization that rejects anthropogenic global warming or the reports from the IPCC?

Surely you see the problem with this question?

Not really. Care to explain?

You have respected scientific journals like "Nature" and "Science" that have published scientific breakthroughs in many fields of science for decades. Are they suddenly wrong on climate change, after even the computer you are using right now is a result of research being published in those and other journals? Is all science just a scam (despite all the things it has done for you)?

But "science" is not a deity. It becomes one when you stop thinking...

I never claimed that science is a deity, but science does have respected organizations that are well known for their contributions to the progress of our species. It is when you automatically discount and reject the scientific findings of respected scientific bodies that it becomes almost like religion.

And the fact is that science is hard to understand. You have the experts who have spent a lifetime trying to understand their field, and then you have a random person who think he knows it all and claims that the science is wrong because of some obviously misleading argument he read somewhere.

Do you visit the doctor or the carpenter if you get sick? I'm guessing the doctor. Similarly, you don't ask, say, an engineer, to tell you about the climate. You ask the people who actually know what they're talking about, and who have put in countless hours of research into their area of expertise.

Science never becomes a deity. It is the people who reject the science because it doesn't seem to support their ideology who have stopped thinking.

If I don't visit a carpenter when sick why should I accept your assumption everything scientists are saying is always true? Are you a scientist? To have an opinion is not scientific proof. To call anyone who does not believe in you, calling them deniers, is a religious act.

Do you believe the science behind putting satellites up in space to be real science or evil science? Do you believe data coming from a satellite to be good science or evil science? Do you believe a computer model predicting future climates that has been wrong to be less evil than satellite data or more evil than satellite data?

Obviously I respect your opinion... As much as you respect mine.

 

[hofor]

If I don't visit a carpenter when sick why should I accept your assumption everything scientists are saying is always true?

I never made such a claim. Individual scientists can make mistakes or even make false claims. But discounting an entire body of scientific research just because you don't like the conclusions is illogical and irrational. Furthermore, the scientists who are commonly caught making false claims on purpose are the tiny minority who reject the consensus on AGW. Those who accept the consensus rarely lie or cheat, and if they do, they are shunned by their colleagues.

But more commonly they make mistakes, and those mistakes are corrected. There are a couple of interesting case studies on how corrections are readily accepted by those who accept the consensus, while those who reject the consensus continue to push flawed studies even after they have been revealed to be flawed, and retracted.

You didn't actually address my comment, though. Do you talk to the experts within a field when you have questions about that field? Or do you contact someone random with no actual expertise within that field. That is, do you prefer your carpenter to your doctor when you get sick?

Doctors can lie and cheat as well, so I guess all doctors are wrong?

To have an opinion is not scientific proof. To call anyone who does not believe in you, calling them deniers, is a religious act.

Calling someone a denier is not a religious act, no. I didn't call anyone a denier, though.

Do you believe the science behind putting satellites up in space to be real science or evil science? Do you believe data coming from a satellite to be good science or evil science?

I don't understand these questions. I never said anything about real science or evil science. There is only science. Scientific measurements using satellite data is real science.

Do you believe a computer model predicting future climates that has been wrong to be less evil than satellite data or more evil than satellite data?

Being wrong is not evil. What's so great about science is that it keeps correcting itself and improving. A model which is wrong today can be improved to be more correct. But the fact is that overall, climate models are surprisingly accurate. But remember, models only make projections, not predictions.

In contrast, those who insist that the science is wrong rarely seem to correct themselves. Even when their claims are shown to be false. False claims are being repeated ad nauseam.

[Cryddit]

One word: Hockey stick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

While we're on the topic of topical youtube links, try this one.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhExwgiSxt8

[hofor]

One word: Hockey stick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

While we're on the topic of topical youtube links, try this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhExwgiSxt8

Another video on the hockey stick by a science journalist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s

To sum up: The hockey stick is real. Anyone who denies that is denying science itself.

[Spendulus]

One word: Hockey stick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

While we're on the topic of topical youtube links, try this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhExwgiSxt8

Another video on the hockey stick by a science journalist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s

To sum up: The hockey stick is real. Anyone who denies that is denying science itself.

False.

Multiple lines of evidence and malfeasance show the "hockey stick" to be false.

[Spendulus]

Why won't Climate Scientists produce the empirical data that will prove their theory that CO2 is the primary culprit behind Climate Change and shut their critics up once and for all? Answer: The reason they refuse to show any data is because the data does not exist. In fact all the empirical data refutes their theory. So instead of showing the data that would prove their theory they manipulate the data; name call by calling anyone who disagrees with them "deniers" and try and shut people up.

Scientists have produced the empirical data that confirms that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the warming. It's there in countless studies by countless scientists. It's all summed up by the IPCC.

Can you name a single respected scientific organization that rejects anthropogenic global warming or the reports from the IPCC?

Yes.  The Thermometers That Say No Warming in the last 20 years.   You know, TTTSNW.  They are very, very reputable.

This is not true. The measurements show that more of the excess energy is going into the oceans. But the atmosphere is still warming as well, although it's warming at a slower rate at the moment (again, due to where the energy is going).

Remember that climate is about the trend over time. Cherry-picking shorter periods of time is not an honest way to go about things. Even if the temperature does have periods of variation (the measured temperature has gone down for shorter periods in the past), the overall trend is still up. It's disingenuous to pretend that the science says that the surface temperature will only ever increase. The science actually does point to periods of fluctuations up and down.

You need to look at the trend.

Cherry picking?  Don't make me laugh.  It was cherry picking that caused the problem, namely looking at disappearing ice caps and such with only three decades of satellite data.  Now we have two decades of data showing no statistically significant warming, and that, my friend, means it is totally correct to say "no warming in 20 years."

Please don't lecture about fluctations and put words in others' mouths that the did not say or imply.  It is the secular trend behind the fluctuations which is being discussed, not the fact that winter is cold and summer is hot.  It is the basic trendline as established with a calculation of the climate sensitivity factor.  And when we compute that with 20 years of no warming, we do in fact find a far, far lower climate sensitivity to co2 than Climate Alarmists have been shrilling crying doom over.

[tvbcof]

There's a new presentation by Murry Salby on-line after his last (that I've seen) from Germany a year ago.  People who follow WUWT will have seen the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ0R1MCkSOU

Dr. Salby seems to be a source of highest terror to the climate science establishment/cult, and his presentations demonstrate why.  This one is somewhat less dense in math (no Lagrange integrals, fewer non-time-domain plots, etc.)  I find it fairly convincing because of the inherent simplicity of his logic chains.

Just generally, the hypothesis that temperature drives CO2 rather than the other way around has better explanatory power, and makes more intuitive sense to me as well.  Salby's recent textbook is graduate level and way way over my head even if I had time and interest to read it.  One thing about the lectures is that you can get a grasp on how competent a guy is in the Q&A a lot of times, and this is one of them.  Especially in answer to Monkton's second question.  Salby clearly knows his shit.

Salby, like others, has paid the professional price for his going against the grain.  I'm still trying to understand the rational behind his strategy which is to publish again only when his research papers are returned and he is able to work in academia again.  If ever.  In the mean time, I hope he continues his independent research and giving lectures from time to time.

Being blacklisted during the McCarthy era eventually became something of a badge of honor, and certainly the people we remember from hundreds of years ago were the few who went against the grain and argued for the heliocentric model.  I have hope that the same will be the case for Salby, Soon, Lindzen, etc.  The establishment seems to be getting more and more outragious which tells me that they are desperate.  On the other hand, the banksters and many other monied power-players are suddenly totally on-board with the catastrophic global climate change (piggybacking on the decades of hard propaganda work of the Socialists now that that has gained traction) so it will be interesting how things will play out.  Or more precisely, the timings of things...the truth always wins out in the end.

[hofor]

Another video on the hockey stick by a science journalist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s

To sum up: The hockey stick is real. Anyone who denies that is denying science itself.

False.

Multiple lines of evidence and malfeasance show the "hockey stick" to be false.

Hmm... thousands of scientists and scientific papers, or someone on a forum... who do we believe?

Are you one of the people who prefer to visit the carpenter instead of the doctor when you get sick?

This is not true. The measurements show that more of the excess energy is going into the oceans. But the atmosphere is still warming as well, although it's warming at a slower rate at the moment (again, due to where the energy is going).

Remember that climate is about the trend over time. Cherry-picking shorter periods of time is not an honest way to go about things. Even if the temperature does have periods of variation (the measured temperature has gone down for shorter periods in the past), the overall trend is still up. It's disingenuous to pretend that the science says that the surface temperature will only ever increase. The science actually does point to periods of fluctuations up and down.

You need to look at the trend.

Cherry picking?  Don't make me laugh.  It was cherry picking that caused the problem, namely looking at disappearing ice caps and such with only three decades of satellite data.  Now we have two decades of data showing no statistically significant warming, and that, my friend, means it is totally correct to say "no warming in 20 years."

I'm not sure what ice caps you are referring to. I'm guessing you'll never explain it either.

As for the rest of the quote, I don't think you understand what "statistically significant" means. You may be referring to Phil Jones' comment that the warming trend since 1995 wasn't statistically significant at the time he was asked a question by a journalist. Of course, opponents of science claimed that he said there was no warming. But he never said that. He said that there was warming, but the time period since 1995 was just too short to give it statistical significance.

By the way, I linked to a graph that shows that there has been a warming trend since 1995. Why did you ignore that?

Please don't lecture about fluctations and put words in others' mouths that the did not say or imply.  It is the secular trend behind the fluctuations which is being discussed, not the fact that winter is cold and summer is hot.  It is the basic trendline as established with a calculation of the climate sensitivity factor.  And when we compute that with 20 years of no warming, we do in fact find a far, far lower climate sensitivity to co2 than Climate Alarmists have been shrilling crying doom over.

I'm afraid you are severaly misguided. There has been warming in the past 20 years, but at the same time more of the energy has gone into the oceans.

[hofor]

Dr. Salby seems to be a source of highest terror to the climate science establishment/cult, and his presentations demonstrate why.  This one is somewhat less dense in math (no Lagrange integrals, fewer non-time-domain plots, etc.)  I find it fairly convincing because of the inherent simplicity of his logic chains.

Isn't Salby the professor who claims that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, and who has been fired for fraud or similar violations a few times (misusing grant money to enrich himself, etc.)?

Just generally, the hypothesis that temperature drives CO2 rather than the other way around has better explanatory power, and makes more intuitive sense to me as well.

So, do we believe you or thousands of scientists and thousands of scientific papers? Isn't it a bit more relevant what makes sense to people who are actual experts?

[Spendulus]

The measurements show that more of the excess energy is going into the oceans. But the atmosphere is still warming as well, although it's warming at a slower rate at the moment (again, due to where the energy is going).

Remember that climate is about the trend over time. Cherry-picking shorter periods of time is not an honest way to go about things. Even if the temperature does have periods of variation (the measured temperature has gone down for shorter periods in the past), the overall trend is still up. It's disingenuous to pretend that the science says that the surface temperature will only ever increase. The science actually does point to periods of fluctuations up and down.

You need to look at the trend.

I'm not sure what ice caps you are referring to. I'm guessing you'll never explain it either.

As for the rest of the quote, I don't think you understand what "statistically significant" means. You may be referring to Phil Jones' comment that the warming trend since 1995 wasn't statistically significant at the time he was asked a question by a journalist. Of course, opponents of science claimed that he said there was no warming. But he never said that. He said that there was warming, but the time period since 1995 was just too short to give it statistical significance.

By the way, I linked to a graph that shows that there has been a warming trend since 1995. Why did you ignore that?

Because it was eminently ignorable.   There's simply no need for ad hominem attacks, or for arguments from authority as you have produced.  There is no need to refer to a "Phil Jones comment."  

The lack of warming can be understood by taking RSS data and applying first semester statistics.

First semester....

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/18/no-global-warming-for-17-years-3-months-a-monckton-analysis/

That was 2013, now it is right about 20 years.

I suggest simply abandon this line of argumentation, including the hockey stick.  Your claim that the missing heat is going into the oceans is a different argument and a different issue.  Essentially this is a backup argument if the hockey stick alarmism fails.  

The ice caps I refer to are those which Climate Alarmists claimed would be gone within a few years.  I'm sure you have heard of them.  The ones where the nice cuddly polar bears hang out?

[Spendulus]

.....

Do you believe the science behind putting satellites up in space to be real science or evil science? Do you believe data coming from a satellite to be good science or evil science? Do you believe a computer model predicting future climates that has been wrong to be less evil than satellite data or more evil than satellite data?

I would not be able to trust reported results from a computer model controlled by Hofor without full disclosure of the method, parameters, source code which enabled critical evaluation of the work.

[hofor]

The measurements show that more of the excess energy is going into the oceans. But the atmosphere is still warming as well, although it's warming at a slower rate at the moment (again, due to where the energy is going).

Remember that climate is about the trend over time. Cherry-picking shorter periods of time is not an honest way to go about things. Even if the temperature does have periods of variation (the measured temperature has gone down for shorter periods in the past), the overall trend is still up. It's disingenuous to pretend that the science says that the surface temperature will only ever increase. The science actually does point to periods of fluctuations up and down.

You need to look at the trend.

I'm not sure what ice caps you are referring to. I'm guessing you'll never explain it either.

As for the rest of the quote, I don't think you understand what "statistically significant" means. You may be referring to Phil Jones' comment that the warming trend since 1995 wasn't statistically significant at the time he was asked a question by a journalist. Of course, opponents of science claimed that he said there was no warming. But he never said that. He said that there was warming, but the time period since 1995 was just too short to give it statistical significance.

By the way, I linked to a graph that shows that there has been a warming trend since 1995. Why did you ignore that?

Because it was eminently ignorable.   There's simply no need for ad hominem attacks, or for arguments from authority as you have produced.  There is no need to refer to a "Phil Jones comment."

What do you mean by "no statistically significant warming" then?

The lack of warming can be understood by taking RSS data and applying first semester statistics.

But there is no lack of warming. It's warming at a slower rate, but it's still warming. And more energy is going into the oceans. Have you paid attention to a single thing I've written?

First semester....

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/18/no-global-warming-for-17-years-3-months-a-monckton-analysis/

That was 2013, now it is right about 20 years.

Yeah, the only problem with that graph is that 1) it's from Monckton (who is not a scientist and has no knowledge on climate), and 2) it's completely false (his graph doesn't match the data). I actually linked to a graph for the past 20 years. You seemed to ignore it.

I suggest simply abandon this line of argumentation, including the hockey stick.  Your claim that the missing heat is going into the oceans is a different argument and a different issue.  Essentially this is a backup argument if the hockey stick alarmism fails.

I'm afraid I simply can't ignore the fact that the scientific community overwhelmingly backs the hockey stick. In fact, it has been independently verified by numerous papers.

More energy going into the oceans is a simple fact. You can choose to ignore it, but why would you do that?

The ice caps I refer to are those which Climate Alarmists claimed would be gone within a few years.  I'm sure you have heard of them.  The ones where the nice cuddly polar bears hang out?

I'm afraid I don't know what you are referring to. Please elaborate.

[tvbcof]

Dr. Salby seems to be a source of highest terror to the climate science establishment/cult, and his presentations demonstrate why.  This one is somewhat less dense in math (no Lagrange integrals, fewer non-time-domain plots, etc.)  I find it fairly convincing because of the inherent simplicity of his logic chains.

Isn't Salby the professor who claims that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, and who has been fired for fraud or similar violations a few times (misusing grant money to enrich himself, etc.)?

Kills puppies also most likely.

Just generally, the hypothesis that temperature drives CO2 rather than the other way around has better explanatory power, and makes more intuitive sense to me as well.

So, do we believe you or thousands of scientists and thousands of scientific papers? Isn't it a bit more relevant what makes sense to people who are actual experts?

Firstly, many of the 'thousands of scientists and thousands of scientific papers' don't say what most Warmistas have heard that they say.

Secondly, 'thousands' of people confessed to witchcraft over the years and were punished appropriately.  'Thousands' of experts in witchcraft formed a strong 'consensus' about the subject and used state-of-the-art science to deal with the various catastrophes that witches brought about.

Thirdly, if one is ejected from the ranks of 'expert' by going against the grain then no, the surviving hypothesis is not especially relevant.

In my mind, the jury is out on the science behind current atmospheric changes and the associated risks.  It's a complex and (likely by design a) poorly understood subject.  Two things I can say with confidence at this point:

  1)  The science is NOT settled

  2)  The issue is currently being totally abused to run a variety of scams in which by this time TRILLIONS of dollars have changed hands.  Somehow it seems to be the case that everything the 'scientific consensus of experts' produces supports more scammery rather than less and promotes certain projects of certain of those in unrelated fields of politics and social science.

[Spendulus]

The measurements show that more of the excess energy is going into the oceans. But the atmosphere is still warming as well, although it's warming at a slower rate at the moment (again, due to where the energy is going).

Remember that climate is about the trend over time. Cherry-picking shorter periods of time is not an honest way to go about things. Even if the temperature does have periods of variation (the measured temperature has gone down for shorter periods in the past), the overall trend is still up. It's disingenuous to pretend that the science says that the surface temperature will only ever increase. The science actually does point to periods of fluctuations up and down.

You need to look at the trend.

I'm not sure what ice caps you are referring to. I'm guessing you'll never explain it either.

As for the rest of the quote, I don't think you understand what "statistically significant" means. You may be referring to Phil Jones' comment that the warming trend since 1995 wasn't statistically significant at the time he was asked a question by a journalist. Of course, opponents of science claimed that he said there was no warming. But he never said that. He said that there was warming, but the time period since 1995 was just too short to give it statistical significance.

By the way, I linked to a graph that shows that there has been a warming trend since 1995. Why did you ignore that?

Because it was eminently ignorable.   There's simply no need for ad hominem attacks, or for arguments from authority as you have produced.  There is no need to refer to a "Phil Jones comment."

What do you mean by "no statistically significant warming" then?

The lack of warming can be understood by taking RSS data and applying first semester statistics.

But there is no lack of warming. It's warming at a slower rate, but it's still warming. And more energy is going into the oceans. Have you paid attention to a single thing I've written?

First semester....

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/18/no-global-warming-for-17-years-3-months-a-monckton-analysis/

That was 2013, now it is right about 20 years.

Yeah, the only problem with that graph is that 1) it's from Monckton (who is not a scientist and has no knowledge on climate), and 2) it's completely false (his graph doesn't match the data). I actually linked to a graph for the past 20 years. You seemed to ignore it.

I suggest simply abandon this line of argumentation, including the hockey stick.  Your claim that the missing heat is going into the oceans is a different argument and a different issue.  Essentially this is a backup argument if the hockey stick alarmism fails.

I'm afraid I simply can't ignore the fact that the scientific community overwhelmingly backs the hockey stick. In fact, it has been independently verified by numerous papers.

More energy going into the oceans is a simple fact. You can choose to ignore it, but why would you do that?

There are any number of graphs by any number of people, but as I noted we don't need scientists to tell use the results of FIRST SEMESTER STATISTICS.   Duhhh!  Therefore on this matter your arguments from authority utterly, completely fail.

Further, your claim that "more heat" is going to the oceans is only that, a claim.  You don't have a clue as to how much heat was going into the oceans three decades ago compared to now.

I am curious if you understand that the 20 years of no warming means the climate models and the alarmists were wrong.  You try to cover this up by saying "Oh, the heat isn't going into the air, but the sea."

But that is yet another misunderstanding of science.  The planet's latent heat never was in the air.  It was the idiots of poor science that thought they could compute and use a measure of average atmospheric temperature on the Earth, a multi phase system in non equilibrium.

[Wilikon]

[hofor]

Just generally, the hypothesis that temperature drives CO2 rather than the other way around has better explanatory power, and makes more intuitive sense to me as well.

So, do we believe you or thousands of scientists and thousands of scientific papers? Isn't it a bit more relevant what makes sense to people who are actual experts?

Firstly, many of the 'thousands of scientists and thousands of scientific papers' don't say what most Warmistas have heard that they say.

I don't know what these so-called "Warmistas" are saying, but there is a clear consensus that it's warming, and that it's caused by human emissions.

Secondly, 'thousands' of people confessed to witchcraft over the years and were punished appropriately.  'Thousands' of experts in witchcraft formed a strong 'consensus' about the subject and used state-of-the-art science to deal with the various catastrophes that witches brought about.

So now you're resorting to comparing science with superstition? Even a child is able to tell the difference: Science is based on actual facts and data. It's verified through huge amounts of research. On the other hand, witchcraft is superstition where all it has going for it is blind faith.

You are basically attacking all of science here, and equating it with superstition. Why am I not surprised?

Thirdly, if one is ejected from the ranks of 'expert' by going against the grain then no, the surviving hypothesis is not especially relevant.

Who has been "ejected"? Scientists disagree on things all the time. And they settle things by publishing papers on the topic. Thousands of such papers on climate have been published by thousands of scientists, and there is a clear consensus. I dare you to name a single respected scientific body that does not accept AGW.

In order to explain away the consensus, you will need to resort to conspiracy theories similar to "Bush was behind 9/11", "Moon Landing Hoax", "vaccines are harmful and were created to kill people", "the aliens were already here, but the world's governments are hiding it". There's simply no other way to explain away the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.

By the way, this is a good example of the major contradictions from those who reject science: First it is claimed that their friends are ejected from scientific positions, but then it is claimed that their friends have produced lots of studies disproving AGW. You can't have it both ways. And by the way, Richard Lindzen and a number of other scientists who are still happily publishing scientific papers disprove the claim that you are ejected if you go against the grain.

So not only major contradictions, but also obvious factual errors. It basically looks like you are making up arguments as you go.

In my mind, the jury is out on the science behind current atmospheric changes and the associated risks.  It's a complex and (likely by design a) poorly understood subject.

The jury is not out on whether the warming is caused by CO2 or not. Nor whether continued warming will have negative effects overall. These have been settled a long time ago. By, you know, actual science rather than wishful thinking.

Two things I can say with confidence at this point:

  1)  The science is NOT settled

  2)  The issue is currently being totally abused to run a variety of scams in which by this time TRILLIONS of dollars have changed hands.  Somehow it seems to be the case that everything the 'scientific consensus of experts' produces supports more scammery rather than less and promotes certain projects of certain of those in unrelated fields of politics and social science.

The science is settled insofar as there is a clear consensus on the warming and its cause, as well as its negative effects.

As I mentioned, in order to explain away this overwhelming consensus where not a single respected scientific body rejects the consensus position, you need to resort to the craziest conspiracy theories.

It's quite similar to how creationists attack Evolution. They use basically the same arguments: "There's no consensus. Scientists that don't accept Evolution are thrown out. Thousands of scientists as well as just about all governments on the planet are using Evolution to further their evil agenda."

[Anon136]

Can you name a single respected scientific organization that rejects anthropogenic global warming or the reports from the IPCC?

Surely you see the problem with this question?

Not really. Care to explain?

You have respected scientific journals like "Nature" and "Science" that have published scientific breakthroughs in many fields of science for decades. Are they suddenly wrong on climate change, after even the computer you are using right now is a result of research being published in those and other journals? Is all science just a scam (despite all the things it has done for you)?

You cant say, any group of scientists that doesn't believe in AGW is disreputable and AGW is real because no reputable group of scientists argues that it isn't. Its circular.

Of course this does rely on the assumption that if i told you about a group of scientists and then told you that they are AGW skeptics than you would consider them disreputable because of this fact. But i think that is a pretty safe assumption.

[Spendulus]

The science is settled insofar as there is a clear consensus on the warming and its cause, as well as its negative effects.

Hello, Lysenko.

[Cryddit]

I am curious if you understand that the 20 years of no warming means the climate models and the alarmists were wrong.  You try to cover this up by saying "Oh, the heat isn't going into the air, but the sea."

20 years of no warming?  What the hell planet are you living on?  The ten hottest years on record (since we started keeping detailed records in 1880) have all occurred within the last 17 years! 

http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/10-warmest-years-globally



They are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2013, and 2014. 

Yes, the temperature rise has not been as severe as people thought it would be in 2001.  Yes, it's because a lot of the heat they thought would be going into the atmosphere has been going into the ocean instead.  But the temperature rise is still happening, and the ocean temperature can't rise forever without affecting the rest of the world. 

Oh, and while we're at it, here's another nice statistic from the NOAA.  Hurricane damage is showing an interesting trend too. 

[hdbuck]

skeptics 101