What is it with these climate pause deniers?

[graphicconception]

I think it is self-preservation.

If you admit to a pause then someone might ask you to explain it. Consensus science does not have a definitive answer yet so they could give the wrong one. This might be held against them later.

Plan B is to deny it. That way, because it is not happening, they don't have to explain it. It has worked since 2002 (or halfway through 1996 for RSS).

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/fro...96.5/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...01.3/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/fro...2002/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...00.8/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4...01.5/trend

Or a 25 year pause in the Central England Temperatures:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a0105...c3c970c-pi

You are right, it does prompt the question: Who are the real deniers?

EDIT: Alph - Yes, global average surface temperature anomaly is what we are talking about. So we are all agreed then - it has paused. If you want to talk energy instead then we need the energy data since the Industrial Revolution to compare.

How long term were you thinking, 10,000 years? http://tinyurl.com/qcrukoy

EDIT @Jeff M: I think my point is fair. If we have a temperature-based explanation for every year since the Industrial Revolution, then if you move the goalposts to say that energy is really the important parameter then we should re-examine the history to see if energy explained the observations.

This subject area does have a history of ignoring the past. Think of the ozone hole. When it was discovered it was declared bad. Had there always been a hole? No-one knew - but it was bad now. What about "natural variation". First it could be ignored then it caused cooling. What did it do before? No-one had thought to look. If you discover a new effect or parameter should you not apply it to the past and see how that changes the data and confirm that the models and hypotheses still agree?