I listened to the audio and I wouldn't say that was a misrepresentation at all. It sounded more like a man moving goal posts.

You attributed the following quote to Dr. Hansen:

"The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade"

In the audio clip, he clearly states that the average rate of warming has slowed from 0.2ºC in the decade before last to 0.1ºC in the past decade. This statement is in direct contradiction to the quote. Flat and increasing are not the same thing. A man moving goal posts? Listen to more video of his comments on YouTube. His statements haven't wavered in years. Sounds like he's pretty consistently agreeing with what the scientific results show.

Anyway, naturally the trend is upward just as it has since the end of the last ice age and just as it did after every ice age. That being said if we aren't in at least a much slower state of global warming then why are researchers such as David Pierce and Kevin Trenberth then providing studies as to why we have seen a large departure from climate models? Splitting hairs over surface temperature and holistic warming seems pedantic.

There are so many misconceptions about this topic. It's almost as if there is an active effort to encourage scientific misrepresentation.

I can't say why David Pierce and Kevin Trenberth are claiming there has been a large departure from climate models - when I get a chance, I'll look at their research and see what they are saying in particular. Are they considering models that only track surface temperatures? This is another misconception that seems to perpetrate itself: the sum total of global warming can be measured by surface temperature trends.

This is obviously silly. To keep track of global warming, it is imperative to also consider atmospheric and oceanic temperatures in conjunction with surface data. It is also important to realize how these models work. The models must account for some variability, seeing as how we are considering an immensely complex, nonlinear dynamical system. I read a paper a few days ago that predicted the current warming slowdown in its model - I'll see if I can find it again and post a link. This slowdown is by no means a "model-breaker" as skeptics claim. The current rate of warming falls easily within bounds of variation.

We have not experienced the climate changes and corresponding secondary/tertiary effects that were predicted at the beginning of the century. This by no means damns the science or scientists but it does suggest a great deal of further research is necessary before using this science to make/change public policy

We have already established that there are an immense number of variables that play into this dynamic system. Of course it is complex! But to imply that this fact means scientists are unable to identify and predict global climate patterns with a large degree of confidence is just plain wrong.

Why haven't the drastic changes occurred yet? There are a lot of hypotheses for this, but one logical claim is the effect of La Niña conditions that have been in place for some time now. This could account for the slowdown in the surface and lower atmosphere warming. However, ocean temperatures have continued rising unabated.

The problem with waiting to make any policy changes is apparent: what if the science is correct? We could end up with a much greater loss in this scenario. Why not make some modest efforts now, just in case? If the trends worsen, then we can make stronger efforts. If the trends ease up, then we can lessen restrictions. Instead, as usual, people go for the all or nothing approach.

I personally don't understand why it's so difficult for people to believe that man-made global warming is possible. I don't think it's solely due to CO2, as Lyle wants to continually attack. But that, in combination with all the other ungodly chemicals we spray into the atmosphere - seems like a reasonable belief that these things could easily have a dramatic effect on our delicate atmosphere.

Or not. It isn't like the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe they have sufficient evidence to make this claim. Let's just gamble with it, see where it goes.