202 Months Without Any Global Warming

With the AGW crowd trying to crank up the rhetoric about how we're all doomed unless we do something about global warming in order to 'make things right with Gaia', it's too bad that their narrative doesn't match the real world observations that show that there has been no warming for 202 months (16 years and 10 months) and that it appears we are heading for a cooling period. How do they sell everyone on the idea that we must make draconian sacrifices in order to prevent whatever it is that they think is going to happen? How do they spin it to make it seem that the last 16+ years have no meaning even though their sacred global climate models do not come anywhere near close to reality? It's simple, really:

Move the goalposts that indicate there isn't any warming.

The least-squares linear-regression trend on the data from the RSS satellites since November 1996 shows there has been no global warming at all for 202 months (16 years 10 months). In a few more months, unless an el Niño comes along in January, its favorite month, RSS may be the first dataset to show 17 full years with a zero global warming trend.

The NOAA’s 2008 State of the Climate report said 15 or more years without global warming would indicate what was delicately described as a “discrepancy” between prediction and observation.

Fifteen years without warming duly came and went: indeed, Professor Jones of the University of East Anglia was the first to admit this, in response to a question I had suggested to Roger Harrabin of the BBC (who had thought I was daft to suggest that there had been no statistically-significant warming for as much as a decade and a half).

But more than 15 years have passed, so the time period to show there has been no warming was changed to 17 years. And now that we're approaching 17 years some want to push it back to 20 or even 25 years. Sorry, but that isn't going to fly. In order to prove or disprove the phenomenon a time limit must be set otherwise it is too easy to leave things open-ended which in turn means it will be impossible to prove it one way or the other. Writes one commenter about the moving goalposts:

Say – “This disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.”

What can we do then? Obviously nothing has turned the tide. Perhaps its time to agree on some metrics that will falsify AGW? It’s almost as if AGW has a life all of its own and it appears all political.

It doesn't just appear to be political, it is political. They cannot let facts get in the way of their agenda, so if the facts don't support it they attempt to diminish or respin them to make them either irrelevant or appear to support their cause. But the old canards they've used over the past few years aren't working any more and the public is wising up to the deception. They can no longer hide the so-called “missing heat” or the lack of warming for almost 2 decades. What will it take before the AGW faithful admit they were wrong, glaciers advancing on Washington DC?