I am happy to provide a citation

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html

The quote comes from a speech by the good professor to the World Climate Conference in Geneva last week.

The point is, surely, that something not accounted for in the models must be affecting the climate. Let’s find it. This is science isn’t it?

[DC: I see no quote, just a mistaken paraphrase from a blogger: "Latif found the results would bring the remorseless rise in average global temperatures to an abrupt halt." Latif said no such thing.

And, by the way, even the quote you give above makes clear that Latif refers to the "strong warming of the last decades". He did not ever refer to cooling or even lack of warming in the last decade, and I defy you to find a direct quote from him where he did.]

“Professor Mojib Latif, (lead author of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)) from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany, has been looking at the influence of cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation. When he factored these natural fluctuations into his global climate model, professor Latif found the results would bring the remorseless rise in average global temperatures to an abrupt halt.

“The strong warming effect that we experienced during the last decades will be interrupted. Temperatures will be more or less steady for some years, and thereafter will pickup again and continue to warm”.”

Which begs a question. If the only evidence we have for AGW are the model projections and none of them predicted what is actually happening, how can anyone predict a resumption in warming in 10, 20 or 30 years. On what basis?

[DC: You quote a blogger (from the BBC, I believe, although you provide no citation) as saying "professor Latif found the results would bring the remorseless rise in average global temperatures to an abrupt halt." That is a gross distortion. In fact the Keenlyside et al 2008 (Nature) projection for 2010-2020 calls for 1.8C warming according to my preliminary analysis. The paper also makes clear that by "some years", Latif means up to 2015 - only five years from now. More discussion of these points can be found in my post on Andrew Revkin.]

Sorry not to reply to your previous – very busy – you know how it is . .

Did you notice the story in the New York Times on the 21st Sept.

“The world leaders who are meeting at the United Nations to discuss climate change on Tuesday are faced with an intricate challenge: building momentum for an international climate treaty at a time when global temperatures have been stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years.”

The NYT is not noted for being a hotbed of sceptics. Do you still cling to your previous quote?

“Please stop spouting nonsense about a “pause” in global warming. We still have not had a decade as cool or cooler than a preceding one, and there is no evidence that we will in the coming decade.”

Its getting cold out there is it not?

Regards

[DC: Well, let's see. So far, we have two major errors corrected, plus a host of problems exposed. Thanks for the heads up on this confused analysis. By the way, it's not the first time Revkin has gotten hopelessly muddled on the temperature record.]

DC corrects him and shows that this is not what that article says (neither is it what Swanson says in the post, or what was said in the original paper–check for yourself).

Pilot replies: I did not misunderstand the post on RC.

If that original statement wasn’t a misunderstanding then what is it? A deliberate lie? You’re better off admitting you did misunderstand the article. That at least shows honesty.

The game is up DC. Up till now most sensible people were willing to concede that the globe was warming and that mankind may have something to do with it. What people like me didn’t like was people like you taking the moral high ground, on slender evidence at best, and insisting that everyone should change their lifestyles – because you are right. Your attitude has been one of intolerance and self righteous priggery. No other point of view is accepted. You are saving the planet and therefore everyone should do as they are told.

That was almost bearable when the climate was warming and maybe – just maybe – there was something in it. All the instincts I and many others felt that there was something wrong with this had to be suppressed. The “weather” was definitely warmer. The total lack of evidence that CO2 was the cause had to be ignored. No longer. Of the 20 major computer models none can agree with each other. None of them predicted the current situation. If they can’t agree and can’t accurately predict what’s actually happening – THEY ARE WRONG. CO2 has been increasing at a constant rate. Where is the forcing? There is no way around it. There is obviously something else going on that is a far more powerful forcing agent than CO2. The warming has stopped. It is getting cold out there. No amount of bluster and bluff is going to cover this up.

The hypothesis that global warming will resume is just as invalid as the hypothesis that CO2 caused global warming in the first place. There is not, and never has been, any observable evidence for it. To restructure the entire global economy on the basis of this flimsy house of straw is lunacy and it is only a matter of time before that becomes obvious to the most stupid and venal of politicians. The backlash against “climate scientists” will be ferocious. I hope you are preparing your escape.

[DC: You say: "There is obviously something else going on that is a far more powerful forcing agent than CO2."

Please stop spouting nonsense about a "pause" in global warming. We still have not had a decade as cool or cooler than a preceding one, and there is no evidence that we will in the coming decade. The most one can say as that warming could be modulated by longer cycles in ocean-atmosphere that result in more decadal variation than anticipated. But that hypothesis is still speculation and does not affect expected warming this century.]

[DC: You have clearly misunderstood the guest RealClimate post by Kyle Swanson (who is not part of the RC group, by the way).

c) To repeat: No one, including Swanson, has shown decadal cooling or lack of warming in the 2000s. Each of the past three decades has been significantly warmer than the one before. That includes the 2000s relative to the 1990s.]

I cannot believe the dream-world bubble the silly AGW contingent lives in. James Hansen has taken upwards of a million dollars [that we know of] from organizations with a clear AGW agenda — but the esteemed Prof. Freeman Dyson is presumed to be owned by the evil fossil fuel conspiracy?? Double standard, much?

Unlike Freeman Dyson, the odious James Hansen is paid by the taxpaying public to provide agenda-free science. The taxpayers are being cheated.

Of course, he who pays the piper calls the tune, and Hansen is obviously doing the bidding of those shady outside organizations that are paying him those big bucks — and to hell with the taxpayers, who end up paying for the discredited AGW propaganda instigated by the $$$$$ flowing into Mr. Hansen’s pockets from devious NGOs and individuals who have ulterior motives in flogging the repeatedly debunked CO2=AGW scam.

And yes, it is a scam. That is why neither Hansen, nor Pachauri, nor Mann, nor Gore, nor any other high profile AGW purveyor will agree to engage in a neutral, moderated debate. Instead, they tuck their tails between their hind legs and hide out.

The failed CO2 = AGW conjecture has been repeatedly falsified. Repeatedly! Yet the spittle-flecked arm-waving by the wild-eyed AGW True Believers continues to increase in intensity, caused by their desperation, as they realize that the public is awakening to the falsified AGW scam: as CO2 continues to rise steadily, the planet’s temperature continues to fall (and don’t give me any AGW horse manure about that not being the case. I worked in a closely related climate field for 30+ years.)

Criticizing Freeman Dyson simply because he isn’t published by the thoroughly corrupted climate peer-review clique is disingenuous; how many times have you, or Joe Romm, or Al Gore been published? But since Freeman Dyson hasn’t submitted for publication, you feel free to ad hom him for it. Despicable.

Prof. Dyson has always been a straight shooter. Where does that leave you?

[DC: You're the one apparently living in a "dream world". I suppose there's no harm in letting you spout this nonsense, but of course the facts are completely at odds with every one of your outrageous assertions. And, of course, your pernicious statements about James Hansen "doing the bidding of those shady outside organizations that are paying him those big bucks", are completely without foundation whatsoever. I'm letting it go this time, but only as a textbook case of wild-eyed conspiracy theorist in action.

I did criticize Dyson allowing himself to be used and signing a petition organized by one of the most notorious climate disinformation specialists around. The Bali open letter included statements that are clearly false, and even in apparent conflict with Dyson's own published views. All I ask is that the media pose the right questions. Meanwhile, I stand by every fact presented here.]

[DC: I stand by every fact in this article, including the provenance of the letter from PR consultant Tom Harris, who is a climate disinformation specialist with a long history of links to the fossil fuel industry.

Finally, I observe that it's quite a stretch to refer to the list of signatories as "lot of very distinguished scientists." Only a handful, including Dyson, could conceivably be described this way. But many among the list are not even scientists at all, let alone "very distinguished." And almost all, including Dyson himself, have no expertise in climate science, and have not published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.]

Anyway, thank you for giving this brilliant scientist more publicity. I hope people will look up his comments and make up their own mind.

[DC: Dyson called Gore global warming's "chief propagandist" and characterized Hansen's work as "lousy science". Sounds pretty vicious to me.

If and when Dyson actually publishes scientific research on climate, we can "discuss the science", but not until then. As to "false associations", I stand by every fact presented in this post. I tend to agree with John Mashey that Dyson probably represents a "sad case", but that does not excuse the contemptible behaviour of Tom Harris and the National Post, nor Dyson's complaisance.]