hmmmmmmmmmmm.

As mny people were without work there was less driving and less driving would show up as a ‘break’ as earth’s temps briefly did cool by 0.5C and many Northern Hemisphere locations north of 45 degrees latitude had very harsh winters for modern days.

Even the mid atlantic had a string of below norm temps for 3 winters in a row.

It caused many Conservatives to think there was an ice age coming ‘any day’ mostly fueled by a Russian Scientist at that time who came forward and publicly predicted one by 2012-13 and no later then 2015 we would be in the deep freezer reviving the 1970s ice age scare.

Sites like Ice Age Now which only talks/rants about cold weather aand bans you if you even mention warm/hot weather.

All the comments seem to be the kiss ass type and I wonder if other people got kicked whom had the wrong kind of post.

Yes, making a mistake is wrong by definition, and a big enough mistake will brand the maker as an idiot — at least for a time. Of course, few mistakes are unfixable, and fixing the mistake should remove the onus.

But the reason I write this is to question the way you seem to regard any mitigation measure as a mistake. Would you consider this measure a mistake?
* Insulating houses and office buildings to use less energy for heating and cooling reduces emissions of CO2. It also saves the owners of the buildings money in the long run.

I find it hard to see how mitigation measures in general can be considered destructive. Lord Stern and other economists have pointed out how much worse it would be to depend only on adaptation. I fall back on Benjamin Franklin’s adage: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

The term “hiatus” is used over a dozen times in IPCC AR5 to describe the record of surface temperature anomaly over the last 15-20 years.

The IPCC used the term “hiatus” to describe the period 1998-2012, i.e. 15 years. 20 years is an obvious exaggeration. Whatever the “hiatus” was, it is now history.

the current CMIP model forecast of surface temperature which differs strongly from observation, as clearly shown in AR5. In particular see FigBox TS.3-1

This is simply wrong. How can observation differ strongly from modelled forecast range if observation is within the modelled forecast range? (TFE.3 Figure 1)

Beating up the statistically and climatologically insignificant “hiatus” as if it differed strongly from the current CMIP model forecast is profoundly un-serious and un-helpful.

Yes, from the IPCC. The term “hiatus” is used over a dozen times in IPCC AR5 to describe, not vague objections to climate theory, but to the record of surface temperature anomaly over the last 15-20 years, and specifically the change in decadal surface temperature trend *downward* to a 1/2 to 1/4 of what it was in the latter 20th century.

“One of the implications of a multi-year “pause” in global warming is that the science of global warming must be somehow wrong, ”

Again no, the problem of the hiatus is with the current CMIP model forecast of surface temperature which differs strongly from observation, as clearly shown in AR5. In particular see FigBox TS.3-1, frame (a) of the AR5 Technical Summary.

Explanations for the model’s hot forecast may include, for example, inadequately modeled heat transport mechanisms to the deeper ocean instead of the surface, or that CO2 sensitivity is too high. In this latter case CO2 sensitivity refers in all IPCC discussions to the forcing from CO2 and all net feedbacks, not just CO2 alone. Also, the models may have undervalued the size of natural variability.

In any case, recognition of the modeling error will lead to improvements. Dismissing the error as if it never happened, or that the “hiatus” is some kind of junk science invention and not recognized by the IPCC, this is all profoundly un-serious and un-helpful.

What do you suggest for your average redneck?

As I said, a lie gets half way around the world before the truth gets its boots on. On this issue the truth cannot compete with lies.

It’s not about winning your average nerd. It’s about winning your average redneck in the face of campaigns of lies about a so-called “pause”, we can’t “prove” we’re causing warming, the scientists are “lying” to us for their research grants, warming will be “good” for us, etc., etc.

A lie gets half way around the world before the truth gets its boots on.