Yes, and according to ARGO (the organization in charge of all the ocean temperature measurement buoys) there has been no increase in global ocean temperature at any layer. You can feel free to download their data and dig through it yourself if you doubt this assertion.
And as of last week, using data from the Argo floats, the LLNL found that "the Southern Hemisphere's oceans have warmed at a higher rate over the past 35 years than previously thought." It's a dynamic situation.
Where, oh where... did the missing heat go. No it's not hiding in the deep ocean... as noted in a study in Nature Climate Change this week: "A second study, also published in Nature Climate Change, found that the deepest parts of the ocean, beyond 6,500 feet, have not warmed by very much in the past decade. Much of global warming's impacts are playing out closest to the surface, said Joshua Willis, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and co-author of the study. The study set off a furious debate among scientists and oceanographers studying climate change. The world's surface temperatures have risen at a slower rate over the past 15 years than at any time since 1951, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Some scientists have tied the phenomenon, called the global warming "pause," to the deep oceans' taking up more heat. But the NASA study suggests that may not be the case." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mystery-of-ocean-heat-deepens-as-climate-changes/ This is also the week where the ARGO warned LLNL (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) and other organizations to use all the ocean temperature data in their studies and not simply cheery-pick which float data they want to use while rejecting other data points.
Can you identify a single person that does not believe that the climate is changing over some undefined period of time? Is there a Law of Climate Change? Hardly, because there is no theory underlying climate change, no mathematical expression of it that agrees with observation, and it is yet not possible to predict it. We know a great deal about it, and yet our knowledge is still rudimentary. The central issue now should be whether cutting man generated CO2 by some percent will have any noticeable beneficial affect on climate. A working hypothesis was put forth by Hansen, i.e., man's CO2 emission could lead to catastrophic global warming provided there is positive feedback. Simple greenhouse gas theory (this is actually a true theory) allows one to predict, assuming zero feedback, a warming of about one degree Celsius for the first doubling of CO2 from late 19th century levels, but this is not enough to cause catastrophic warming. On balance, observation suggests feedback is slightly negative. A key requirement for acceptance of Hansen's hypothesis is missing from the observations. It is absurd, therefore, to base public policy on an hypothesis not supported by observation. Unfortunately, observation is all we have. There is no theory of climate change!, only hypotheses, and the one that is central to the current controversy has been disproved.
This is the central issue. Until you can grasp this, you can not possibly contribute logically to the current controversy, which ultimately impinges on public policy. That's why it is so important.
Since nobody of any importance reads this stuff, I'm not particularly concerned about contributing anything, logical or otherwise. Therefore I'll rely on the majority of real scientists who believe that global warming does in fact exist and that man's contributions have only made it worse.
"Majority of real scientists" - you seem to be unaware that the percentage of scientists supporting AGW has slid below 50% in 2014 based on feedback from Judith Curry, the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.