ArmchairCritic, the Rockefeller's have divested from shares in fossil fuel quite some time ago.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/22/rockefeller-heirs-divest-fossil-fuels-climate-change

Yes that's right.
They divested into renewables and green energy, hence they have a financial interest in pushing climate change.
I'd almost bet they're planning to profit from carbon pricing.

Other than that, I just don't trust the globalists in their push for a New World Order.
Its an agenda, not an issue.

SteeleRedux,
In regards to Raycom's claim of 18 years, its actually 18yrs 9mths.
This was the first article I found, but I'm sure you can find more info if you look.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/08/06/a-new-record-pause-length-no-global-warming-for-18-years-7-months-temperature-standstill-extends-to-233-months/

Armchair Critic, thanks for the input.

On 30 Sept 2014, CNSNews.com reported Dr John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville, saying that the Earth’s temperature has “plateaued” and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years.See (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/satellite-data-no-global-warming-past-18-years)

The "plateau" is evident in the climate record Christy and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer compiled using actual raw temperature data collected from 14 instruments aboard various weather satellites.
When asked why the UN climate models were proven wrong, Christy replied:
“You’re going back to a fundamental question of science that when you understand a system, you are able to predict its behaviour. The fact that no one predicted what’s happened in the past 18 years indicates we have a long way to go to understand the climate system.”

“And that the way the predictions were wrong were all to one direction, which means the predictions or the science is biased in one direction, toward overcooking the atmosphere.”

Christy added that basing government policy affecting millions of Americans on “very poor” climate models that have been shown to be inaccurate is “a fool’s errand.”

What a fitting description for the Paris Climate Talks.

SteeleRedux,

Bear in mind that the claim was that there had been no "statistically significant"warming in the period. Statistical significance has a very particular meaning to do with complex calculations around 'least squares' analysis, r-values etc.

What its all about is trying to determine how much reliance can be placed on the data given the inherent margins of error in temperature data collections. Even though a particular database might show a rising temperature, calculations have to be made to determine if that apparent rise might be due to limitations in the data. If there's a rise of (say) 1 degree but the calculations show that the margins of error are +/- 2 degrees then all that can be truthfully said is that we know the temperature changed between -1 and +3 degrees. So we can't be sure there was warming and therefore its not statistically significant.

To get a simplified handle on this go to:
www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

(skepticalscience is a pro-warming site so you can trust the data)

As an example enter 1997 as the start date. Enter 2015.5 (ie june 2015) as the end date. Select RSS as the database to use and click "Calculate". You'll see that is shows cooling over the period of -0.004 degrees per decade. Choose UAH as the database and click "Calculate". It shows warming of 0.102 degrees per decade but an error margin of ±0.175 °C/decade. So it isn't statistically significant warming. And so on with most the other databases.

So not bulldust. Instead accepted science. Even the IPCC acknowledges it and alarmist scientists are scrambling to try to find out why the real world isn't doing what their models say it should.

Strange isn't it Raycom, that Exxon used models in 1984 which have been shown to be true in 2015.
Discussed in: http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

A number of Alaskan communities ( e.g Newtok and Kivalina, plus others) need to be moved; exactly why is that the case?
How does that fit into the notion that temperatures have not been increasing, and models are wrong?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/06/3709050/alaska-climate-threatened-community-relocating/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cptop3

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/small-alaskan-island-kivalina-expected-to-be-covered-by-water-within-10-years/story-fnjwvztl-1227506491329

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-arctic-obama-20150830-story.html

Since 2005 there have been 6 flooding events in the US that statistically each one was seen to be a 1 in 1,000 year chance of occurring, according to a Meteorologist.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/07/3709459/south-carolina-flooding-impacts/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cptop3&elq=8e0dc11c6b5540dcb4b434679c95ea45&elqCampaignId=4032&elqaid=27502&elqat=1&elqTrackId=9a13355fb64348128760e67267df4e3a

For major precipitation events to happen the atmosphere needs to be carrying more water vapour.
What causes more water vapour to be in the atmosphere in the first place?

mhaze, the trend line in relation to climate change continues to increase, a factor that has been noticeable for many decades.
Methane plumes have been noted off Oregon, USA; they have been said to rise from a depth of 500 metres. The good part is that while methane is being released at depth it is converted to CO2. The bad part is that the CO2 created and saltwater create a weak acid.

Quote:
"... Methane deposits are abundant on the continental margin of the Pacific Northwest coast. A 2014 study from UW documented that the ocean in the region is warming at a depth of 500 meters (0.3 miles), by water that formed decades ago in a global warming hotspot off Siberia and then travelled with ocean currents east across the Pacific Ocean...."

From:
http://news.agu.org/press-release/bubble-plumes-off-washington-oregon-suggest-warmer-ocean-may-be-releasing-frozen-methane

Similar voiding of methane has been happening off New Zealand.

Dear mhaze,

I went to the site you posted and tried the 4 different datasets for 'Global' temperatures.

Each of these showed a Global Warming Trend greater than that of error bands.

You might need to tell me why I should take a set of satellite data, which the skeptics pair Christy and Spence have been forced to adjust repeatedly, and take it as definite when it is obviously not?