"How can the pause be both ‘false’ and caused by something?"She really did, if you do not believe me, here is the link to her blog post.
I have trouble seeing a contradiction, but I have seen this meme more often among the mitigation sceptics. Questions like, how can you claim there is no hiatus when so many scientists are studying it?
Let's first formulate it abstractly, then give a neutral example, before we go to the climate change case where some people suddenly become too creative.
"How can the pause be false" can be translated to: how can you claim A is still related to t?
While "caused by something" can be translated to: A is also related to X, Y, and Z.
I hope the abstract case makes clear that you can claim that A is related to X, Y and Z without claiming that A is not related to t.
The neutral, I hope, example is: How can the claim that economic growth needs free markets, property rights and rule of law be false, while economists are studying the influence of the [[Lehman Brothers]] crash on economic growth?
I know, analogies do not work in the climate "debate". Someone will always claim that they do not fit. Which is always right. That is why they are called analogies.
There is no statistically significant change in the trend. People who think they see that in a the temperature signal are often just shown a small part of the data and they overestimate the significance of short-term trends. The uncertainty in a 10-year trend is not 10 times as large as the uncertainty of a 100-year trend. A 10-year trend is 100 times more uncertain.
That there is no change in the temperature trend is visually clearly seen by these two elegant graphs made by Tamino.
What causes these deviations from the trend line or the deviations from the average model projections is naturally an interesting question. Something that climatologists used to simply call: natural variability, small stuff, impossible to understand in detail.
It is a great feat that climatologists now dare to say something about these minor deviations. Remember that we had more than half a degree of warming over many decades before climatologists said with any kind of confidence that global warming is real.
Even if these dare devils turn out to be wrong, it tells a lot about the quality of our modern climate monitoring capabilities, climate models and analysis tools, that scientists are willing to stick their neck out and say: I think I know what might have caused these minimal deviations of a tenth, maybe two tenth of a degree Celsius. Pretty amazing.