picking a single year as the benchmark for measuring any climate change shows a pathetic level of understanding.
I didn't, I asked for an answer to the question
the data shown in the graph shows an anomaly year and a step change rise in the mean level that the "cyclic" variation then moves around but there is a plateau in the rise
what is interesting is why this could be happening, is it CO2 related or other factors.
Hence the question
Peter Lilley asked: “Since 1997, the amount of CO2 emitted by mankind is a third of all CO2 that mankind has emitted. And there has been no statistically significant rise in the surface temperature. Does that increase, decrease or leave unchanged your confidence that the scale of warming will be as high as previously thought?”
is actually a reasonable one and one that any curious person would want to ask, but as pointed out in the sketch the argument is so polarised that to ask the question is to become a "denier"/ heretic
Peter Lilley may get paid by the oil men, Tim Yeo gets paid by the renewables industry "cui bono" still applies
and the witness did not answer the question nor accept that there has been a "pause"
Have the concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere home up by a third since that time?
how many Chinese coal/gas fired power stations have been commissioned since 1997?
Why should I believe what some politician says anyway? The same Peter Lilley who gets paid £70,000 a year by the oil industry? Where's his evidence for this?
I imagine if the fact was bogus he would be lynched by the devout, has anyone come out and said his fact is wrong?
epa graph here (to 2008)
Why are you asking us complex modelling questions and not the climatologists? You afraid of the answer?
Peter Lilley asked the question of a (on her LinkedIn page) "Expert in the science of weather and climate" she didn't answer him
so as STW is always the font of all knowledge I opened it out to the forum