Absence of warming denialism
After 15 years of almost no warming, from 1998 to 2013, the climate alarmists were in a total panic. The IPCC was forced to admit that the absence of warming was "central to the new climate report":
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24173504
This is a typical global warming propaganda article from 2013 when all the climate activists were in a monumental panic due to the prolonged absence of warming since 1998:
Temperature Plateau Likely Due to Deep Ocean Warming
Published: July 23rd, 2013
By Fiona Harvey, The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/22/climate-change-slowdown-warming-oceans
Republished by the propagandists at ClimateCentral:
Although the suggestion was absurd, NASA still investigated it - which is proof that they were in a total panic about the absence of warming:
"Study finds earth's abyss has not warmed", Oct. 6, 2014
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/
Seriously, how would the deep ocean warm up without massive warming of the upper and intermediate layers, first? This was just another attempt to cover up the fact that the entire AGW hypothesis is wrong and the models were incapable of providing useful predictions.
More than 50 speculative "explanations" were published as scientific papers to answer the nagging question: why isn't the world warming? WhatsUpWithThat published 52 of them in 2014:
This was their major issue:
Even Nature magazine was forced to acknowledge the absence of warming:
Climate change: The case of the missing heat
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
But they were absolutely sure that the warming would continue, because their "models" said so.
In this interview, the german climate expert von Storch, one of the major IPCC modelers, admitted that the "hiatus", the missing heat, was a huge problem for them, as it contradicted their assumptions:
Climate Expert von Storch: Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?
Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.
In 2015, the NOAA - under the Obama administration - "discovered" the missing heat by ALTERING THE DATA just shortly before the Paris meeting for which Obama needed some warming to justify signing the Paris agreement, which basically consists in the transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars to 3rd world country without any effect on the climate, a fact acknowledged by Hansen himself.
In 2019, NASA finally was forced to remove quite a few "adjustments":
To illustrate the effect of those "adjustments", you have to see the original and official temperature curves vs what they now pass off as the official curves - and remember that they were perfectly capable of measuring very precise temperatures for centuries, so don't fall for any lies about "inaccurate measurements":
One real problem was that they did not have a lot of climate, so the climate apocalypticers simply created fake temperature data out of thin air, as they admitted in the ClimateGate email messages:
This is the state of the "science" they use to fearmonger and to justify the imposition of Marxist methods on the entire planet...