Although rpenner has already utterly destroyed your zombie argument (deje vu again) I want to also point out a couple of other items related to this pretend failure in the prediction of surface temperature. Besides the well known cherry-picking of one of the hottest years ever recorded as the starting point for this so called "hiatus", most of the deniers who present this evidence depend on the temperature records of HADCRUT3 and HADCRUT4 in supporting their conjecture. In both cases, the global temperatures show a cold bias, given that neither of them included the temperatures of the whole planet, including areas of the greatest warming (such as the arctic, mid Africa and areas in Asia) (See Cowtan, K. and Way, R. G. (2014), Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc.. doi: 10.1002/qj.2297) a situation that has been known since at least 2007. GISS and HADSST2 suffer from the same bias. This means that the so called "hiatus" is anything but, and temperature rise still matched the lower end predictions set out by the IPCC in even their earliest reports. Further, there has been a great deal of work done on understanding why there is a slower rise than expected in the "business as usual" scenarios. A number of factors have been identified, from volcanic aerosols from low to mid-level volcanic eruptions (Santer et al, Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature Nature Geoscience 7, (2014)) to equatorial Pacific ocean cooling (Kosaka & Xie, Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling Nature (2013)) to higher than expected Pacific ocean surface water overturn (England et al Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus Nature Climate Change 4, 222–227 (2014)). And there is more. This is a zombie argument that just won't die, and those that continue to use it to support their denialism are guilty of exactly that: denialism.