There's a fair amount of unscientific denialist garbage mixed in there, Brett, but I suppose you knew that. As all opinions are equal, there's no reason to separate the scientific wheat from the chaff, right?

Reply: How do know which ones are more valid than others? Most of these are from scientific study.

Re the seeming lack of jiving, if you read carefully you'll see that they don't contradict each other. The key is to keep track of which decade is being discussed.

Reply: I looked at that carefully. They were saying ten-year forecasts captured this leveling. Remember the key word is forecasts. The leveling has just recently occured, so in order for it to be a forecast, it would have had to have been made prior to the leveling off. If it was made during the leveling off it would not be a forecast. In the summer of 2007 their statement said to expect continued warming with no mention of any leveling off. Maybe what they are saying is that their new ten-year forecasts are now factoring in the latest leveling of temps to produce a better forecast.

...waiting for a "just goes to show that the science isn't settled" comment....

I don't think anyone can predict the weather or climate more than a few days out. It is a chaotic system with some big butterflies.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-05/03/content_8094640.htm

For those who were depending on The Met Office Hadley Centre for their AGW confirmation will now have to find new sources to prove their case. After reading their August 07 and May 08 findings their credibility is beyond repair.

These predictions have been around for a very long time. Some time ago, the AMS reprinted a global warming article that had been printed in the 1930s. When I was a teenager in the 1970s, The Baltimore Sun ran an article saying that by the year 2000, there would be no such thing as winter, all the ice caps would be gone, and sea levels would be 200 feet higher. Back then it was called The Greenhouse Effect. In 1999, just one year before the predicted doomsday, I bought a house on a barrier island just 5 feet above sea level. It's 8 years past doomsday and I am still 5 feet above sea level. As long as there are young impressionable minds out there, there will always be these predictions.

One specific prediction which troubles me is the JPL claim of the PDO shift back to the cool phase. Looking at this graph, I don't see much evidence for it.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/fourier/low-pass:20/inverse-fourier

Congratulations Brett this is an excellent post. It clearly demonstrates the lack of consensus and man's incredible arrogance.

Great post Brett. As I have said before, to say with any degree of accuracy what our climate will be like in 100 years is simply FRAUD!!! There are too many forcings.

This one I tend to agree with the most...

"10/3/07.....Earth will only heat up 8/10 of a degree over the next 100 years and the sun is the
major driver of this increase. The temperature increase is not a catastrophe."

Although I disagree with Crinchton because he believes in a carbon tax. Go figure?

I wanted to learn about climate change because I was concerned about the mis-allocation of energy resources in this country and the adverse consequences if we insist on using our natural gas to make more and more nitrogen fertilizers to grow more and more corn to make ethanol which requires huge amounts of this valuable fuel in the fermentation and distillation process.

The global warming advocates have also been exerting pressure on utilities to build more natural gas power plants and this will only result in higher eletric bills for the already stressed consumer.

This morning on CNBC, Sharon Epperson, their energy reporter is warning that there may not be enough natural gas in storage to heat our homes next winter. Folks, we are going down a very dangerous road.

Brett: Excellent post! After reading through the headlines, it is apparent that scientific knowledge has not progressed to the point where predictions are even remotely reliable. Models cannot accurately project future climate because earth's climate systems are so poorly understood.

The so-called "natural cycle" becomes the default response but that doesn't explain what is happening either. Perhaps someday we will have more sophisticated instruments capable of evaluating earth's climate from outer space but I believe that is many years away.

In the meantime, we should avoid jumping to false conclusions about what we are observing and we should oppose solutions based on conjecture. Scientists need to prove the link between CO2 and climate warming before embarking on measures to marshall enormous resources to address it; first, prove that there is a problem then take steps, if possible, to mitigate it. Today's climate alarmists want to reverse this process by acting as though we know what is happening when we truly do not.

Then it is really inescapable that the Global Cooling effects are having to be acknowledged from science accademia! Long term climate models of say three to ten years ago forcasting out ten to fifty years were telling us that the earths atmosphere was reaching a tipping point of catastrophic proportion, that in some projections we were going to see the earths atmosphere turn into something like venus's. A hot house of sulfuric acid rain and fog clouds covering the whole of our planet. I remember the Acid Rain controversy and it was a real thing, I remember the first rains after dry spell being so acidic that holes would be burned through the leaves of deciduous trees here in the north east. Smoke stack scrubbers and requirements for cleaner coal and lower sulfer content in petroleum fuels made a difference. But more interesting to me is the aspect of living oceans and atmosphere, and that life and inteligence and consciousness are not limmited to the human nerve net! We humans live in a big universe and there is certainly more we don't know than what we know! Sounding like Donald Rumsfeld, sorry...Point is science and truth does not suffer from recognition that life and inteligence are essential qualities of nature and the universe itself. I say we will see a continued cooling and increase of rains in arid areas. Something big is going on!

The AGW alarmists have had to regroup and modify their predictions as warming has all but disappeared while CO2 continues its upward climb. For anyone following the bobbing and weaving that is going on in the AGW camp, you must admire their ingenuity. They are definitely adopting a defensive posture but they are not abandoning their core belief concerning GHGs and warming.

Marc Sheppard at American Thinker has posted an analysis entitled, "Are Global Warmists Pulling a Cool Fast One?" In it he quotes the scientists behind many of the false predicitons and their explanations for what we are seeing today. He also raises questions about the long-term strategy seemingly being employed to prop up the AGW theory. It is a very interesting article. Here is the link:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/are_global_warmists_pulling_a.html

Here is a new prediction, explaining how cooling is actually warming.

Next decade may see rapid warming, not cooling

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/2/115552/7430/

RSS data is out for April.

Coldest April in the southern hemisphere in 23 years
Coldest April in the tropics in 19 years
Coldest April globally in 11 years
Coldest April in the US in 10 years

http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_1.txt

No doubt NOAA and GISS will report it as "one of the X warmest months on record, continuing the increasing trend of man made global warming."

Environmentalists - concerned about an imaginary global warming problem - want to destroy the Grand Canyon to in order to protect the environment.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3872547.ece

Brett, see here for a detailed clarification (vetted by the principal author) of the most recent projection paper. (Note that three of your links, the first two and the last, refer to this same paper, which is confusing for the uninformed.) Reply: The first one talks about a new computer model by German researchers saying that temps will be rising again by 2020. It also discusses the MOC. The second one has no mention of the german results and talks about the ENSO masking the warming. The last post is indeed the same as the second one and I apologize. I was obviously more tired than I thought.

The linked post also discusses the alleged "conflict" between the August 2007 paper and the new one, concluding:

"(T)his general prediction � internal variability leading to slower than expected warming in recent years through 2010, followed by accelerated warming � is almost exactly the same prediction that the Hadley Center made last summer in Science[.]"

I would ask you for a correction, but experience has taught me not to bother. Feel free to surprise me, though. Reply: Real nice Steve. If I recall, I have indeed made corrections at least 2 times in the past based on your suggestion. I appreciate your efforts in digging up the info. I will take a closer look.

BTW, at least two other predictions on your list have already been disproven. Reply: That's not the point of the post.

Finally, I would suggest to you that a prediction that is a) by a scientist not in a field directly pertinent to global climate and b) not backed up by a peer-reviewed publication wasn't worth putting on your list.

In the immortal words of Mark Knopfler "Two men say there're Jesus, one of them must be wrong".

Hi Steve Bloom,

Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts
Richard Feynman

What are you worried about anyway? All the foolish predictions of the ignorant-denier-non-peer-reviewed-flat-earth-oil-industry-religious-fanatic-creationist lackies will no doubt be proven false in the near future.

Patrick Henry,

RSS data is out for April.

There you go, again; presenting useless, obviously incorrect information as fact. Everyone knows that His Eminence's, Dr. James of Hanson, GISS data, which BTW, will be out shortly, will show that temperatures in the month of April will have increased by at least 0.80 deg C.

Anyone want to place a bet on this prediction?

Look out AGW sympathizers, the MCP is out checking your compliance! Heaven forfend you're found harboring a heterodox thought.

This among all the other political reasons is why there are "skeptics"and "deniers" to the global warming hoax. Everything in weather is a guess, sit and watch 4 different local T.V stations from the same city, one has rain Tuesday, nice Wednesday, another has nice Tuesday and rain Wednesday, and it pretty much happens this way all the time. One time one station is right one time another is right and alot of times none of them are right. To predict weather patterns years down the road is impossible and that is a proven fact, but hey with so many different predictions there is bound to be one right.

Steve Bloom,
For all the brilliance of the exquisitely credentialed peer reviewed climate scientists, and thier equally brilliant and nuanced studies, it turns out they make rather lousy weather forecasters. As Mark and others suggest ad nauseum, climate is not weather.

Hi Brett,

I particularly liked this one -

01/31/07....Sydney, Australia will see a 9 degree celsius increase in temp. by 2070

Followed closely behind by this -

Mar 5, 2008 Sydney's Coolest Summer in 50 Years Leaves Empty Cafes, Gloom
http://www.topix.com/news/global-warming/2008/03/sydneys-coolest-summer-in-50-years-leaves-empty-cafes-gloom