Again you're setting up a straw man. Judith Curry does not "deny man made global warming". The argument is not over whether or not man's activity warms the planet. The argument is about how much.
Sea ice, oh deluded one, sea ice. And only in the Antarctic, and it's due to global melting. Ice mass totals? Way down and rapidly decreasing. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/
(1) The above chart is from 2001. It's out of date and is an embarrassment to the IPCC because it includes the predictions of future temperatures that were shown to be false by the next 14 years of temperature measurements. (2) The sharp measured temperature data on the right hand side of the graph are not compatible to the smoothed proxy data on the left hand side. When you butt two data sets together, one smoothed and the other not, you're going to get the appearance that things have changed between the two data sets. (3) Unlike most of the global warming crapola, this one actually includes error bars. And the error bars show that the present temperatures are less than the peak temperatures of the medieval warm period, after taking into account the errors. I'll draw them for you: (4) And the proxy data used for the first 850 years of the above is under dispute. For example, during the MWP it's well known that England exported wine. Sorry but it still hasn't gotten warm enough for that. (5) The proxy data has been cut off at roughly 1850. This is done because the proxy data after that date doesn't match the measured temperatures. To imagine that it matched the data previously requires one to be silly. It is this problem with the proxy data that led to the famous "hide the decline" email (which was released in 2009). By the way, the alarmists typically sidestep the issue with the "hide the decline". They claim it was necessary because the modern temperatures are known to be rising and hence are better than the modern proxy data. But the point is not that modern temperatures are declining (they're not). The point is that the modern data show that the proxies don't work for modern temperatures, and so should not be trusted for ancient temperatures. And the inevitable result of averaging over a bunch of randomly wrong proxies is to eliminate any significant temperature excursions. Which is what they wanted in the effort to make the modern temperatures look hot.
No, the predictions were NOT shown to be false by the next 14 years. Not at all. What IS shown by your saying that is that you are indeed deluded. How's the grass over there on the right? Where do YOU get your climate science? Fox News? WSJ ? Forbes ? lol I'm not even going any further since your very first statement about this still valid prediction is laughably wrong
Looks like the world's air temps are still increasing. No real change in trend here. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201501_gistemp/
And we're below, though the winter was warmer than usual. All of which is okay by me. We'll see how the summer plays out. (and no locusts this year )