The Great "Warming Pause" Lie Revealed

One of the greatest lies (and there are lots of them) the denier lobbyists make is how there has been no warming for [insert your time period of choice] years. Here is an example of one of these lies:

Source: WUWT

Why is this a lie? For the very simple reason any data base, unless it is perfectly vertical, will have periods where the average is constant (zero slope) for some period of time. All you have to do is pick your period of time and your end points. Of course, that is exactly what Anthony Watts and Christopher Monckton have done and this topic has already been discussed. The interesting thing is how they have to keep changing their endpoints to make their lie seem plausible. Take a look:

Source: WUWT

Their time period here is from August 1996 to March 2014. Now compare:

Source: WUWT

Their endpoints are now October 1996 to December 2014! What's up with that? And, compare that to the first plot above with the time period of September 1996 to September 2014. Lie exposed! They are cherry picking their endpoints to get the desired result - something you can get out of ANY database. Allowing for the possibility the non-existant 'pause' could continue, the right endpoint would change. But, if their claim was real, there would be no need to EVER change the starting point. The ONLY reason you would ever need to change the starting point is because it doesn't work out the way you want. If they continued to use the same starting point, they would not be able to get a constant average.

That makes their plots lies.

Furthermore, the claim there has been no warming is simply not true. First, the surface data clearly shows a warming trend. I addressed that topic here. Also, the record of increasingly hot years keeps getting longer and it is statistically impossible to explain this record as being random.

They are liars. We already knew that, so this isn't really news. But, the interesting thing is how they have actually PROVEN GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL! Yes, you read that correctly. Take a look at this plot made by cunudiun (click on the image for a larger version):

Source: cunudiun

What he did here was to take a larger time period and plotted the trend line, meshing the Watts plot in precisely. It is easy to see the Watts plot is actually offset IN THE POSITIVE direction from the trend line. [Note the offset labeled 'surge' in the plot.] And, notice how the trend line is actually closing in with 'no warming' average as you go from left to right.

What this means is they were able to find an flat-line average, which is a simple math exercise, but they could ONLY do it with an average that is GREATER than the trend line. If there were no warming, as they claim, if there was a 'hiatus,' their average line would have dissected the trend line, not been offset. The offset PROVES, without question, the temperature is increasing during their cherry picked period.

Watts and Monckton have succeeded in proving, without doubt, that there has absolutely been warming over the period they indicated.

So, not only is this a huge lie on the part of the deniers, but it is a monumentally stupid one at that. And, anyone that falls for this has to be massively naive. 

What's up with that?