Can we now claim, after 18 years 4 months of no warming, the Man made global warming theory was incorrect?

To get the right answer, you have to ask the right question. The question is: What does the data show as to the EFFECT of retained solar radiation on an array of ecological areas. Also 'the average' isn't the point anyway. The artic area 'average' has risen a full 5 degrees... that's a lot! Other parts of the world report long term changes in glaciers, wind patterns, ocean currents and wave action. The mantra that there's been 'no warming' is simply wrong on many levels because the data disproves the statement.

No, this is not about an extreme increase. It is about an increase over time in the temperature. Yes there will still be cold days. But that's not going to stop the Icebergs from melting, because the melting temperature is colder, and the temperature now is warmer that it use to be by a few degrees. I don't think the people understand what climate change means. That is why there is so many arguments about this topic. Its not something that we would notice because our body adapt to the slow change in climate if you were somewhere watching the icebergs melt you would notice from that. If you were to look at data on temperature change over the past 20, 30, 50, or 100 years you would see that the globe is warming.

Global warming doesn't exactly mean that its getting warmer, just that there is an unusual flux of temperatures.

No, We can't even agree on the temperature trend over the last 18 years. Some data sets show no warming; others show warming. The oceans below 2000 feet might be warming significantly. Surface temperatures are pretty stable.

Despite all the uncertainty over the last 18 years, we know future trends for certain. Funny how that works.

The AGW hypothesis is still intact. Models simply overestimated the magnitude of warming. Instead of 4-6 C by the end of this century, we are on track for something closer to 1 degree of warming.

No of course not, what we can say is that the process is not well understood and needs further study. That said no large investments should be made on things that are not well understood. Simple!!

If you are going to state that we have had xxxx time period of no global warming, you need to include at least one reference to support your statement. I am not even asking that the reference be credible, though that would be nice.

To have a reasonable discussion of the issue, we would have to agree on our definitions of what climate change is and how it is measured. In the past, I've had to establish whether a particular watershed was or was not polluted. That led to the problem of what level of PCBs or PCB like chemicals should be considered pollution. It's not a trivial problem that we can solve by just shouting.

When we first started talking about possible warming, it quickly became clear that warming would not occur homogenously across the earth. Just the act of trying to agree on what is happening has resulted in a much better understanding of climate.

In my opinion, the breakthroughs in knowledge are so incredibly overwhelming, there is so much to learn, thus there is no time to waste fighting each other. (I've been struck by the similarity to what I've been reading about war in the 14th century - the squabbles were so constant, so useless, so downright stupid.) Can we ever learn to talk to each other?

Denialism - look at the story that supports your argument. Ignore the bits that don't. In this case, deniers will ignore the oceans because the cult of denialiams says ocean warming doesn't exist. Failing that, they'll come up with some conspiracy that ocean temps have been fiddled. Whatever, you can't win with the cult of denialism. It's shape shifting spaghetti monster and they will come up with a new argument. Failing that, they go into Al Gore bashing mode.

Global Warming was ALIEN made & turned off 11/28/2012/ confirmed by other nations. Global Warming lasted 35 years 11 months. Global Command

What we can now claim, is that Toyota probably made billions off the prius. What we can also say al gore is rich. What we can also ask is that if the climate change scientists were to claim it wasn't a problem, would we continue to fund their research? Ask yourself, "what was the ******* ice age?"

That would be the natural conclusion of any normal objective person, based on the best available data from NASA,RSS , the IPCC etc.

http://climatechangenationalforum.org/nasa-study-f...

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/0...

But as you can see from some of your answers, the dedicated fanatics of the church of GW & other members of the lunatic fringe are still mindlessly shouting their official mantra "Its hiding in the oceans" Its hiding in the oceans" just as they were instructed several years ago when it became obvious that the climate models & actual measurement were diverging.