Why the pause hurts the climate delusionists so much

For years, the delusionists in the IPCC forced their view that CO2 caused the 20th century using a very simple argument:

CO2 went up
Temperature went up
Therefore CO2 caused temperature to go up

There’s no science to this argument. (The actual science as shown by Herman Harde is that a doubling of CO2 is likely to cause about 0.6C warming.  That’s the only science in this whole scam, but you won’t find a mention of this one bit of science in any IPCC report⁺⁺. This science only explains around 0.1C of the supposed 0.7C warming in the 20th century.)
They were particularly fortunate. CO2 measurements only began in 1958, since when CO2 levels have risen pretty steadily, so there’s no oddity or “events” in CO2 levels to take account of. And also, when they drew a line from the 1960s to 2001 (when this scam really took off), barring a small period in the 1960s without warming, they could claim that the 30 year rise from 1970-2000 was an exact match (allowing for “noise”).
And so long as CO2 rose and they could claim that temperatures were rising, they could claim a direct relationship between CO2 and temperature.

Then along came the pause

I was not the first to spot the pause, but I was one of the first to use it.** And from very early on I could see its importance. Because:

1. it divided the temperature (post CO2 measurements) into two separate regions. These two regions each had their own trend (of which one is zero) and each have to be independently explained.
2. it created a point in time when this change occurred.

Admitting the pause must reduce predicted warming

The first is important, because the CO2 trend has not changed. Therefore the explanation of the pause requires a second variable at least as strong as the first. To use a rather hand waving argument to show how this must reduce the scale of CO2 warming, put simply before the pause was admitted, the warming equation was:

Warming_20th = BogusScale_nopause x CO2 level

But after they admit the pause, they have to introduce a cause of that change. If the scale of that change is “2 P”, then the new warming equationS are:

Warming_20th = BogusScale_pause x CO2 level +P
Warming_21st = 0  = BogusScale_pause x CO2 level – P

From this we can quickly see that:

P = BogusScale_pause x CO2 level
BogusScale_pause =  (BogusScale_nopause)/2

So, simply by admitting the pause, the bogus scaling up of the CO2 effect has to be reduced (if the effect is P -> -P as above it is halved).

The timing of the pause

So, as Andrew Montford pointed out today there are now around 40 attempts to find a “P” that would explain the second trend. But the pause isn’t just a second trend. It is a point in time that the second trend began.
The advantage the delusionists in the IPCC had in the past, was that there is no time relationship between two increasing variables. Even if we imagine a 30 year time lag, if one goes up, the other goes up, so time is not an important aspect of the relationship. This makes it almost trivial to find variables to “explain” the upward trend. And as is shown in the picture above right, there are many such variables that correlates with the “rising temperature”.
But as soon as we get a “turning point” from one trend to another, there comes into existence a point of time when things change. So, now not only does one have to explain why there is a different trend which requires another variable as big as the first (so reducing its likely size), but one also has to explain why it happened at that particular time.
This is why the pause is so effective at demolishing their delusional ideas.
Because until they admitted the pause, it was a trivial matter to claim that because one thing was rising it was causing something else which was rising.
But now they must explain not just one thing but three:

1. The scale of the change in the 20th century
2. AND the scale of the change (i.e. to pause) in the 21st century
3. AND why that change occurred at the turn of the century.

And it gets worse in the future

There now exists three future scenarios for global temperature

1. Return to warming
2. Continued pause
3. Temperature drop down again

One would think that the delusionists in the IPCC would be overjoyed if we get more warming, because wouldn’t this “prove” them right?
Far from it!!
Because, if we see more warming, not only do they have to explain the timing of the start of the pause, but they then have to explain a second timing which is the end of the pause. By pure dumb luck, they might find something that just happened to change around 2000 and convince our gullible politicians that this “caused” the pause. As the 40 “dog ate my warming” excuses show, there’s enough of them trawling the data trying to find something to explain their embarrassment and politicians are not known for their scientific abilities so it will be pretty easy to convince them. So, sooner or later they’ll find some obscure variable to introduce to their equations that just happened to change around the turn of the century.
But can they do it a second time? No! Because the chance of any one variable changing twice at just the right time to explain why nature changed her temperature, is just too remote. And you can fool a politician twice, but … OK, you can always fool the politicians but the rest of the public are not going to fall for such a con three times in a row.
So, obviously a cooling phase will destroy the global warming delusion, but so too will another upswing. Because another turning point means they then have to explain:

1. The scale of the change in the 20th century
2. AND the scale of the change (i.e. to pause) in the 21st century
3. AND why that change occurred at the turn of the century.
4. AND the scale of any third trend
5. AND the timing of the change to any third trend.

Which kind of leaves everyone hoping that the “pause” continues. Sceptics, because we know the harm of cooling. Delusionists because a second turning point would mean the inevitable exposure of them as scientific frauds.

** Around 2007 I wrote several proposals on the Wikipedia Global Warming article using the word “Pause” to describe the end of warming. I used the word pause because “stopped” or anything implying an end had absolutely no chance. As it turned out, they completely utterly denied any downward change in the slope in temperatures (at that time they were sure the slope was increasing) and I realised that Wikipedia had no credibility and stopped editing. (And it’s with some glee, that I note the same delusionists still edit it as they still don’t mention the pause.)
++There CO2 warming effect was once mentioned as a footnote possibly in 2004. However, the figure was based on data from the last millennium and for some “strange” reason, when Herman Harde reran the calculations using the up to date figures of IR spectra and found a much lower level of CO2 induced warming – they were less than pleased and have not mentioned the only science since.
Note: A climate delusionist, is someone who increases their confidence that humans caused the 20th century warming at the same time as their predicted warming fails to materialise and almost none of their predicted trends for extreme weather prove to be true. Rising confidence at a time your predictions are moving false is a clear sign of delusion.