At what point does everyone realize that the left seeks the destruction of America? Fakey Bakey Climate Conniption is only a tool to transfer wealth and control from the US to the UN, and to allow the UN to govern this country. It is treason.

DE-FUND THE U.N. !

The Black Helicopters are coming for you. Maybe.

Yes, climate science is simply a tool of the left, and all they want is to DESTROY AMERICA.
Or it might be baseless alarmism with more than just a conspiratorial twist.

The left have turned climate "science" entirely into a litmus test/political thing. All it is now is Occupy Wall Street redux.

"Climate scientist" The term "Political Hack" is more like it.

We now are witnessing soaring rates of CO2------yet no Global Warming, theory dead!

And the planet is GREENING, more forests, more crop production.
The govt should give an incentive for buying a big V-8 engine!

Warmest September on record. On pace to be the warmest or near warmest year.

Yeah, sounds like a dead "theory" to me.

Notice the data comes from Stephen Goddard a pseudonym for a Heartland Institute hack who has issued several written apologies to NOAA, NASA and NSIDC. It is clear that the fraudulent climate science is coming from deniers who don't even publish using their real names and this DC article on climate is just BS.

Then go to UAH and RSS and read the data yourself, instead of the usual hands over your ears while yelling lalalalala.

It is obvious you have never done what you suggest. If you had it would be self-evident that your comment is vacuous.

Wow! So this article didn't report the true data from UAH and RSS?!?! Is that what you're saying here?

Now I know you are just another warmist troll. Tell you what, why don't you go and bring us your magic numbers from their sites. Unreal.

You did not have to confirm that which was self-evident that you're not a scientist nor scientifically literate. If you were, you'd know the article is not reporting the "true" data. Maybe you should visit UAH site before commenting. Maybe you should find out how satellite data are obtained and what processes are necessary before the data are representative. Hint: they have to be correlated back to land stations for a final iteration to obtain a representative dataset.

UAH? Hadcrut? RSS? Any of them showing warmest temperatures? Why is NOAA-NASA ignoring their own satellite records?

Do you people ever get tired of just talking to yourselves and dismissing anyone who isn't a true believer (vast majority of people)? At this point I'd say the only people you're trying to convince that global warming is still a thing are the true believers.

For the last 18 years, RSS LT shows 0.00 warming. UAH LT shows +0.18 C.

Why do you hate science? Science isn't politics, it is objective reality. Science work is the most difficult line of work, requires the most comprehensive education, and is essential to problem solving. Do you realize that if the results of climate change are debunked, it'll be by another scientist and not by some witless denier comment writer? Hence less than 2% of the US population is active in science. So you should put your big boy pants on and don't comment on the evidence and known science about which you have little to no comprehension or understanding. The sad thing is that you're not smart enough to recognize that you won't solve human-induced climate change using vacuous, opinionated, emotive comments. Scientists will do that and we recognize that the magnitude of the problem is greater than most can comprehend. So your ilk resort to denial and obfuscation by politicizing the topic which is apolitical and stands on the evidence for those who understand it.

I don't hate science. I hate liars and frauds. Satellites don't lie. None show this year to be warmest. None show warming after 1997. You don't want to admit it. You don't want to believe it. But there it is.

You're not interested in science. You pervert science for ideological reasons. At this point you're just trying to convince yourselves. No one else believes it anymore.

Satellites don't lie.

You're clueless when it comes to science and what and how the satellites obtain data. If only you were smart enough to know how obnoxiously ignorant you are.

Computer models are not science. There is nothing unique about our climate. Do a little historical research and see what sort of extreme weather there was in centuries past, you know, factual stuff, evidence based, that sort of thing.

Climate models are certainlt science -- they solve the PDEs numerically.

Thank you for confirming that you're neither a scientist nor scientifically literate. Do you revel in obnoxious ignorance?

Just like any religious zealot, they can't see that their beliefs follow the old tried and true ideological traits of every other religion on the planet, mostly fearmongering and doomsday predictions.

Yes, UAH shows warming. RSS excludes the poles; also, they use a climate model for some of their adjustments.

No UAH doesn't show this year as the warmest. Their warming overall is barely detectable. 2010 and 1997 were basically the same. The trend is basically flat over all. No others show this year to be the warmest, not even Japan. It's a basic fact that no satellite record shows this year to be the warmest. This is basically NOAA-NASA playing games with statistics for political purposes. You know it, I know it. Stop pretending that's not what's happening.

RSS shows no warming. HADCRUT shows no warming. Satellites don't lie. Bureaucrats with agendas do. No one buys it anymore David.

All polar temperatures are reconstructed as no records exist prior to a few years ago. That makes any temp record using them basically garbage. Using a single consistent method of temperature record shows no global warming. It's only when you get the adjusted NASA-NOAA temp records that you suddenly get these proclamations. That's a fact. You might convince yourself that data manipulation is a legitimate way to decide this to be the warmest year ever, perhaps you WANT to believe it. Most people won't buy it. It's over.

Wow! A whole article from a conservative based news group. Nearly the entire scientific community says otherwise and there's dozens of articles that say it was the hottest September. But whoa, one whole article that disagrees. That's something. Not much of something, but something.

The only scientists who say otherwise are the ones who amazingly, still cling to the old and antiquated thermometer data set. This article is informing you of what the more reliable and accurate satellite data sets are showing. This isn't hard.

more reliable and accurate satellite data sets

that statement says that you're neither a scientist nor scientifically literate and have no clue about what manipulations have to be performed to obtain the satellite datasets due to differences in basic measurement hardware, decaying orbits, etc. FYI: the satellites don't measure temperature directly.

Strawman much? Who said UAH and RSS doesn't have to perform adjustments? Are you kidding me with this chronic garbage? I choose to discard a data set that is constantly being tampered with, taken from a network in an 85% state of disarray, and does not even document the real area of concern.

Your ridiculous statement about not being a scientist and being scientifically illiterate, is not only wrong, but reeks of a wannabe troll.

Please refrain from confirming that you're neither a scientist nor scientifically literate, it is self-evident from your vacuous junk science statements. Hint: satellite data provide information for one portion of one layer of the four main layers of the Earth's biosphere that are affected by the sun's incoming energy and the Earth's outgoing radiative properties. We also obtain empirical measurements of this layer around the world by other (more accurate) scientific methods which provide superior baseline data that are used to calibrate the satellite records. The final satellite dataset are calibrated and re-iterated and adjusted to reflect the observed and measured data. You'd increase your science knowledge on this subject from confused and complete ignorance to enlightened by reading the recent published climate science such as DOI: 10.1002/qj.2297.

How do know it's being tampered with?

Satelite models do a lot of adjusting too -- RSS even uses a climate model for parts of it -- and their algorithms are complicated. They've had to make many corrections over the years.

Goofy, quit going to science fiction movies. They are make believe.

The hypothesis has failed as the hypothesis states as CO2 rises so will global temperatures at a rate of at least 0.2 C per decade. The warming we are seeing is not alarming and all within nature variability.

Here are the predictions we have been hearing over and over for the last 20 years and all have failed:

According to the IPCC, between the years 2000-2009, growth in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning was, on average, 3% per year, which exceeds the growth estimated by 35 of the 40 SRES scenarios.
Human-caused greenhouse gas emissions set a record in 2010, a 6% jump on 2009 emissions, exceeding even the "worst case" scenario cited in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. AR3 in 2001 projected a temperature rise of about 0.2 °C per decade for the next two decades for all SRES scenarios.

So we should be 0.3 C warmer by now, but we aren't.

In 2007 we were told:

The new model developed at the Met's Hadley Centre in Exeter, and described in the journal Science, predicts that warming will slow during the next few years but then speed up again, and that at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year on record. Over the 10-year period as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 deg C warmer than 2004.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

We should now be 0.3 C warmer than 2004.

Then in 2009 we were told the latest super-duper models would silence the skeptics:

World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns. New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Niño southern oscillation cycles is expected to silence global warming sceptics.

http://www.theguardian.com/...

This study states we should have been 150% warmer by now than the IPCC predicted and we are not.

Here are the top 10 hottest years from NOAA, all within hundredths of a degree of each other:

2010: 0.66

2005-0.65

1998-0.63

2013-0.62

2003-0.62

2002-0.61

2006-0.60

2009—0.59

2007-0.59

2004-0.57

2012-0.57

No, the hypothesis of AGW does not state that the temperature will rise by 0,2C per decade, every decade.

The IPCC predicted it would rise 1.5 degrees from 1990 to 2005 and it turned out they predicted 5 times too much as the real increase was .28 degrees....
THE IPCC WAS WRONG PREDICTING A CATASTROPHIC RISE INSTEAD OF THE MILD ONE WE REALLY EXPERIENCED.

Oh. Please give a source as to where the IPCC predicted a temperature rise of 1C per decade.

Oh please don't be so unaware of public information.

Provide a source that confirms your statement that the IPCC predicted a temperature rise of 1C per decade, or 1,5C from 1990 to 2005 if you wish.
Or you could admit you are just making stuff up as you go along, or simply regurgitating stuff that your favorite ideologically driven faux-science blogs tells you to believe.

cut it out, I've done that a million times....

As I said, IPCC predictions are in the public realm..... You are just a moron demanding unnecessary sourcing a million times over and over.

We've done this dance before.
You are too basically ignorant if you won't even acknowledge the IPCC made predictions....

You don't want to win that argument, because IPCC predictions are the sole basis for any funding.

And if the IPCC never made global warming predictions in 1990, 1994, 1997, 2001, 2004, and 2007, there is no point in arguing for you...

But they did make all those predictions.... and they were wrong.

I asked you about your rather absurd statement that the IPCC predicted a temperature rise of no less than 1,5C from 1990 to 2005. So far all you have provided us with is exactly nothing besides nonsense. How's that working for ya?

It was the IPCC's own 1990 computer model prediction on which the entire global warming scare was based.

Without it, there is no global warming scare, so don't embarrass yourself by denying history.

Just argue as to whether or not there was a prediction. If you can prove me wrong, you are welcome to try....

Until then...
facts is facts. history is history,.. The IPCC really made several formal global warming predictions... None of them came true.

Try arguing that the IPCC never made any predictions like some of the other bozos I've debunked.

Your whole global warming scenario makes no sense at all if you deny the IPCC predictions, because then there is no reason to do anything....

So on what basis does the future NOT look rosy to the alarmists?

What IPCC document? Title? DOI? Page number?

really??? what an idiotic question...

As soon as you explain the non-existent IPCC document, page numbering system to me....LOL

what a stupid idiot to think the IPCC computer predictions which have been in the public domain since 1990, 1994, 1997, 2001, 2004, and 2007 and now 2012 would not be compared someday to the actual temps....

Read and/or watch Richard Alley. He does a very good job of explaining this to deniers. It's so simple even a Herb Daniels could understand.

Read or watch the Pied Piper. I hear he's a good flute player.

I agree that Alley is a great science communicator, but I think you give him too much credit. Explaining something as complex as climate to Herb is an impossible task, even for Alley.

Wrong, The warming has been about 0.9 C.

You obviously cannot read simple charts.

Yes it does.

IPCC FAR: Under the IPCC Business as Usual emissions, a
rate of increase in global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3 C per decade with an uncertainty range of 0.2 C to 0.5 C per decade.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccrepo...

IPCC TAR: On timescales of a few decades, the current observed rate of warming can be used to constrain the projected response to a given emissions scenario despite uncertainty in climate sensitivity. This approach suggests that anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.2°C per decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario, similar to the corresponding range of projections of the simple model used in Figure 5d.

http://www.grida.no/publica...

IPCC AR4: For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.
Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publicat...

And everything I posted in my earlier post above states the warming would be happening right now based on the models and the skyrocketing amounts of CO2. Yet CO2 keeps skyrocketing and global temperatures are not responding as predicted. Hypothesis fail. So how about you link to the IPCC prior to 2009 where they predicted this "pause" should be happening right now.