The measurements show that more of the excess energy is going into the oceans. But the atmosphere is still warming as well, although it's warming at a slower rate at the moment (again, due to where the energy is going).
Remember that climate is about the trend over time. Cherry-picking shorter periods of time is not an honest way to go about things. Even if the temperature does have periods of variation (the measured temperature has gone down for shorter periods in the past), the overall trend is still up. It's disingenuous to pretend that the science says that the surface temperature will only ever increase. The science actually does point to periods of fluctuations up and down.
You need to look at the trend.
I'm not sure what ice caps you are referring to. I'm guessing you'll never explain it either.
As for the rest of the quote, I don't think you understand what "statistically significant" means. You may be referring to Phil Jones' comment that the warming trend since 1995 wasn't statistically significant at the time he was asked a question by a journalist. Of course, opponents of science claimed that he said there was no warming. But he never said that. He said that there was warming, but the time period since 1995 was just too short to give it statistical significance.
By the way, I linked to a graph that shows that there has been a warming trend since 1995. Why did you ignore that?
Because it was eminently ignorable. There's simply no need for ad hominem attacks, or for arguments from authority as you have produced. There is no need to refer to a "Phil Jones comment."
What do you mean by "no statistically significant warming" then?
The lack of warming can be understood by taking RSS data and applying first semester statistics.
But there is no lack of warming. It's warming at a slower rate, but it's still warming. And more energy is going into the oceans. Have you paid attention to a single thing I've written?
Yeah, the only problem with that graph is that 1) it's from Monckton (who is not a scientist and has no knowledge on climate), and 2) it's completely false (his graph doesn't match the data). I actually linked to a graph for the past 20 years. You seemed to ignore it.
I suggest simply abandon this line of argumentation, including the hockey stick. Your claim that the missing heat is going into the oceans is a different argument and a different issue. Essentially this is a backup argument if the hockey stick alarmism fails.
I'm afraid I simply can't ignore the fact that the scientific community overwhelmingly backs the hockey stick. In fact, it has been independently verified by numerous papers.
More energy going into the oceans is a simple fact. You can choose to ignore it, but why would you do that?
There are any number of graphs by any number of people, but as I noted we don't need scientists to tell use the results of FIRST SEMESTER STATISTICS. Duhhh! Therefore on this matter your arguments from authority utterly, completely fail.
Further, your claim that "
more heat" is going to the oceans is only that, a claim. You don't have a clue as to how much heat was going into the oceans three decades ago compared to now.
I am curious if you understand that the 20 years of no warming means the climate models and the alarmists were wrong. You try to cover this up by saying "Oh, the heat isn't going into the air, but the sea."
But that is yet another misunderstanding of science. The planet's latent heat never was in the air. It was the idiots of poor science that thought they could compute and use a measure of average atmospheric temperature on the Earth, a multi phase system in non equilibrium.