This is the actual report:
The section Peiser appears to be paraphrasing is this:
21 Measurements show that averaged over the globe, the surface has warmed by about 0.8oC (with an uncertainty of about ±0.2oC) since 1850. This warming has not been gradual, but has been largely concentrated in two periods, from around 1910 to around 1940 and from around 1975 to around 2000. The warming periods are found in three independent temperature records over land, over sea and in ocean surface water. Even within these warming periods there has been considerable year-to-year variability. The warming has also not been geographically uniform – some regions, most markedly the high-latitude northern continents, have experienced greater warming; a few regions have experienced little warming, or even a slight cooling.
Note that the period of maximum possible human creation of "greenhouse gases(TM)" which would have occurred from about the beginning of WW-II in 1938 until the beginning of smog controls and attention to pollution around 74 or 74 corresponds to a stasis or temperature drop period, and not to warming.
In other words the entire idea of man-caused global warming is a bunch of bullshit.
Good. Now that we are on the same page, literally, snake, why don't you keep reading. Try the next paragraph after the one you cited, where the Royal Society says that every decade since the 70s has been warmer than the previous decade, and 2000-2009 has been 0.15 degrees C warmer than the 1990s. Which makes Presier's claim that the Society agrees with him (and you)that there has been no warming since 2000 completely bogus. ("largely concentrated" does not mean no warming outside of that period. The mass of the solar system is "largely contained" in the sun. That doesn't mean the earth and Jupiter don't exist). The Royal Society, Great Britain's most presigious scientific organization, completely disagrees with your contentions about global warming and what they say is 180 degrees from what you think they say. Have you signed up for remedial reading courses yet?
You also have no idea what you're talking about re greenhouse gases and history. The very slight temperature drop from around 1940-1970 you're referencing was in fact due largely to the industrialization starting in WWII, which in fact produced as a waste product massive quantities of particulate matter, sulfates, and aerosols, all of which act to decrease temperatures, which they did very slightly--not enough to counteract the pre WWII warming but enough to very slightly offset continued warming. Pollution controls which came in in the late 60s and 70s in fact counteract those byproducts, which have a short life in the atmosphere--weeks to a year or two, as opposed to CO2 which stays in the atmosphere a century or so. Those pollution controls have no effect on CO2 (or methane, for that matter), which is why warming is unaffected by them. I suggest you look at the research the IPCC summarizes, or their graphs, which still show the greatly reduced anthropogenic aerosol production having a slight offsetting effect on the much larger impact of CO2 and lesser gases like methane.
You're roughly triply bogus here.
the entire idea of man-caused global warming is a bunch of bullshit.
That's what I've been saying!
Climate change yes, global warming no. Climate change is felt as a lack of 'moderation': the summers are hotter, the winters are colder, but the average is average. My guess is (I first noted a change in central Pa. in the late 1960s) the wide spread use of chlorinated water supplies. Chlorine is made from salt, and after put in water, as a gas, it evaporates out, rises in the atmosphere, re-combines with sodium, which is naturally in the upper atmosphere, turns back into salt (no surprise) and comes back down with the next rainfall, salting the soil up. If you go out in the woods (with the obvious exception of deep rooted tress) you will see very few perennials, just fast growing, light green annuals. High soil salinity. The primary 'greenhouse gas' is water vapor (many more times effective than CO2), and the change in soil and plant life have an immediate effect on water vapor and weather. It would be easy if the problem was CO2, just hire the right corporation and give them all your money and they will fix it: but if the problem is chlorinated water, water that otherwise isn't fit to drink because of industrial agriculture, suburban sprawl, over population, plastic use (PVC is a chlorine), et al, then that is no fun, and no money in it for the banker class.
As a result of writing the previous comment I decided not to be a completely uninformed idiot and so I went and read the literature on global warming, at least the stuff that the UN puts on the internet.
Chlorine comes up as the primary mover, but not in surface level warming or cooling, but in the stratosphere, where it is the primary agent responsible for ozone depletion. Supposedly that problem has been solved by the elimination of the originally formulated 'Freon', i.e., CFCs. Ozone depletion supposidly gets you changes in the jet stream. Well, we got changes in the jet stream a plenty. The jet has been streaming over my house since December 1 right out of the north pole without letup. It didn't use to do that. It use to come out of the west.
IE won't open that page for me beyond the header, enough to know it was published a year ago, in May 2012, before the rest of 2012 which turned out to be extremely hot with a record number of extreme weather events (you pump more energy, i.e. heat, into the system, you get more weather disasters). Somehow i suspect Peter Ferrara wishes he could edit it retroactively. Or that he'd just shut up in the first place.