Slashdot Mirror

Allow me to extensively quote John Cook (http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html), as he is closer to the topic than I am.

What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? "Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998 http://www.elmhurst.edu/~richs/EC/FYS/Mannetal.OriginalPaper.pdf), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692171/pdf/43XA8LK6PCMVMH9H_353_65.pdf). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 ( http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/4/741/2008/cpd-4-741-2008.pdf ) which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

In the skeptic blogosphere, there is a disproportionate preoccupation with one small aspect of climate science - proxy record reconstructions of past climate (or even worse, ad hominem attacks on the scientists who perform these proxy reconstructions). This serves to distract from the physical realities currently being observed. Humans are raising CO2 levels ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm ). We're observing an enhanced greenhouse effect ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm ). The planet is still accumulating heat ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm ). What are the consequences of our climate's energy imbalance? Sea levels rise is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm ). Greenland ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm ). Arctic ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm ). Globally, glacier ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm ). Antarctic ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm ).

When you read through the many global warming skeptic arguments ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php ), a pattern emerges. Each skeptic argument misleads by focusing on one small piece of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture. To focus on a few suggestive emails while ignoring the wealth of empirical evidence for

Allow me to extensively quote John Cook (http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html), as he is closer to the topic than I am.

What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? "Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998 http://www.elmhurst.edu/~richs/EC/FYS/Mannetal.OriginalPaper.pdf), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692171/pdf/43XA8LK6PCMVMH9H_353_65.pdf). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 ( http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/4/741/2008/cpd-4-741-2008.pdf ) which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

In the skeptic blogosphere, there is a disproportionate preoccupation with one small aspect of climate science - proxy record reconstructions of past climate (or even worse, ad hominem attacks on the scientists who perform these proxy reconstructions). This serves to distract from the physical realities currently being observed. Humans are raising CO2 levels ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm ). We're observing an enhanced greenhouse effect ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm ). The planet is still accumulating heat ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm ). What are the consequences of our climate's energy imbalance? Sea levels rise is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm ). Greenland ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm ). Arctic ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm ). Globally, glacier ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm ). Antarctic ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm ).

When you read through the many global warming skeptic arguments ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php ), a pattern emerges. Each skeptic argument misleads by focusing on one small piece of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture. To focus on a few suggestive emails while ignoring the wealth of empirical evidence for

Allow me to extensively quote John Cook (http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html), as he is closer to the topic than I am.

What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? "Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998 http://www.elmhurst.edu/~richs/EC/FYS/Mannetal.OriginalPaper.pdf), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692171/pdf/43XA8LK6PCMVMH9H_353_65.pdf). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 ( http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/4/741/2008/cpd-4-741-2008.pdf ) which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

In the skeptic blogosphere, there is a disproportionate preoccupation with one small aspect of climate science - proxy record reconstructions of past climate (or even worse, ad hominem attacks on the scientists who perform these proxy reconstructions). This serves to distract from the physical realities currently being observed. Humans are raising CO2 levels ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm ). We're observing an enhanced greenhouse effect ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm ). The planet is still accumulating heat ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm ). What are the consequences of our climate's energy imbalance? Sea levels rise is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm ). Greenland ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm ). Arctic ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm ). Globally, glacier ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm ). Antarctic ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm ).

When you read through the many global warming skeptic arguments ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php ), a pattern emerges. Each skeptic argument misleads by focusing on one small piece of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture. To focus on a few suggestive emails while ignoring the wealth of empirical evidence for

Allow me to extensively quote John Cook (http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html), as he is closer to the topic than I am.

What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? "Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998 http://www.elmhurst.edu/~richs/EC/FYS/Mannetal.OriginalPaper.pdf), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692171/pdf/43XA8LK6PCMVMH9H_353_65.pdf). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 ( http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/4/741/2008/cpd-4-741-2008.pdf ) which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

In the skeptic blogosphere, there is a disproportionate preoccupation with one small aspect of climate science - proxy record reconstructions of past climate (or even worse, ad hominem attacks on the scientists who perform these proxy reconstructions). This serves to distract from the physical realities currently being observed. Humans are raising CO2 levels ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm ). We're observing an enhanced greenhouse effect ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm ). The planet is still accumulating heat ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm ). What are the consequences of our climate's energy imbalance? Sea levels rise is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm ). Greenland ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm ). Arctic ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm ). Globally, glacier ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm ). Antarctic ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm ).

When you read through the many global warming skeptic arguments ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php ), a pattern emerges. Each skeptic argument misleads by focusing on one small piece of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture. To focus on a few suggestive emails while ignoring the wealth of empirical evidence for

Allow me to extensively quote John Cook (http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html), as he is closer to the topic than I am.

What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? "Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998 http://www.elmhurst.edu/~richs/EC/FYS/Mannetal.OriginalPaper.pdf), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692171/pdf/43XA8LK6PCMVMH9H_353_65.pdf). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 ( http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/4/741/2008/cpd-4-741-2008.pdf ) which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

In the skeptic blogosphere, there is a disproportionate preoccupation with one small aspect of climate science - proxy record reconstructions of past climate (or even worse, ad hominem attacks on the scientists who perform these proxy reconstructions). This serves to distract from the physical realities currently being observed. Humans are raising CO2 levels ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm ). We're observing an enhanced greenhouse effect ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm ). The planet is still accumulating heat ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm ). What are the consequences of our climate's energy imbalance? Sea levels rise is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm ). Greenland ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm ). Arctic ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm ). Globally, glacier ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm ). Antarctic ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm ).

When you read through the many global warming skeptic arguments ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php ), a pattern emerges. Each skeptic argument misleads by focusing on one small piece of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture. To focus on a few suggestive emails while ignoring the wealth of empirical evidence for

Allow me to extensively quote John Cook (http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html), as he is closer to the topic than I am.

What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? "Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998 http://www.elmhurst.edu/~richs/EC/FYS/Mannetal.OriginalPaper.pdf), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692171/pdf/43XA8LK6PCMVMH9H_353_65.pdf). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 ( http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/4/741/2008/cpd-4-741-2008.pdf ) which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

In the skeptic blogosphere, there is a disproportionate preoccupation with one small aspect of climate science - proxy record reconstructions of past climate (or even worse, ad hominem attacks on the scientists who perform these proxy reconstructions). This serves to distract from the physical realities currently being observed. Humans are raising CO2 levels ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm ). We're observing an enhanced greenhouse effect ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm ). The planet is still accumulating heat ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm ). What are the consequences of our climate's energy imbalance? Sea levels rise is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm ). Greenland ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm ). Arctic ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm ). Globally, glacier ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm ). Antarctic ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm ).

When you read through the many global warming skeptic arguments ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php ), a pattern emerges. Each skeptic argument misleads by focusing on one small piece of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture. To focus on a few suggestive emails while ignoring the wealth of empirical evidence for

Allow me to extensively quote John Cook (http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html), as he is closer to the topic than I am.

What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? "Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998 http://www.elmhurst.edu/~richs/EC/FYS/Mannetal.OriginalPaper.pdf), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692171/pdf/43XA8LK6PCMVMH9H_353_65.pdf). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 ( http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/4/741/2008/cpd-4-741-2008.pdf ) which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

In the skeptic blogosphere, there is a disproportionate preoccupation with one small aspect of climate science - proxy record reconstructions of past climate (or even worse, ad hominem attacks on the scientists who perform these proxy reconstructions). This serves to distract from the physical realities currently being observed. Humans are raising CO2 levels ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm ). We're observing an enhanced greenhouse effect ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm ). The planet is still accumulating heat ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm ). What are the consequences of our climate's energy imbalance? Sea levels rise is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm ). Greenland ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm ). Arctic ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm ). Globally, glacier ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm ). Antarctic ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm ).

When you read through the many global warming skeptic arguments ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php ), a pattern emerges. Each skeptic argument misleads by focusing on one small piece of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture. To focus on a few suggestive emails while ignoring the wealth of empirical evidence for

Right, I also found http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm which contains a good explanation of isotopic measurements of atmospheric carbon.

more than a little disingenuous

Disingenuousness in Global Warming research (sorry I mean Global Warming agitprop)?

I'm shocked.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1511/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm/
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2898/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm/

Gore showed me a scary graph in a film and I believe him and that's all that matters.

... rates number 11 in this handy list of psuedo-skeptical arguments

... rates number 11 in this handy list of psuedo-skeptical arguments

I would caution you against using the periodic solar activity claim to back your argument. This idea has been injected into the public dialog as a farcical talking point and is lacking in evidence. If you would like to examine a great source of information and a healthy debate, check out: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=2&t=515&&a=18 I'd also recommend Thomas Friendman's Hot, Flat, and Crowded, which very clearly outlines many important issues and facts connected to climate change.

According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago.We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.

Even the anti skeptics site skeptical science refers to him, so no Solanki is not a climate heretic.

"am I missing something?"

You claim one data set shows tempratures "leveling off", the report claims a "cooling trend".

See here, for what the TREND says.

Can you point to *one* paragraph, "new study" or "data revision" in the report that you think is worthwhile debating?

Sure. I personally think that the Paltridge 2009 study on water vapor is very interesting. I'm having trouble locating it now, but one of the climate blogs I read every so often had an interesting article up on what I think was this same study. Long story short, anything that changes a substantial part in climate models IMHO deserves to be allowed as a comment.

I've also been interested in the changes and updates to climate surface stations in the US, but imho that's slightly less relevant for this paper.

1. He claims that tempratures have been trending downwards for the past 11yrs - this can be debunked by a simple google search [google.com.au] and is laughable to anyone who has looked at the temprate records.

Since you linked to skeptical science, I'll toss another link out there:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

That's what being referred to AFAIK.

3. He complains the last IPCC report is 3 years old and thus out of date. - Fucking nonsense [realclimate.org].

What's nonsense? I didn't see anything in the RC link that clarified that?

They are the scum of the earth and I don't find it the least bit "bizzare" that the "slashdot crowd" are calling bullshit on this particular example of Machevelian politics.

Calling BS on, I never mind--if it's supported. I do mind mindless ad hominems and attacks that completely skirt the issue. Thanks for the reply, I believe you're the only person out of dozens that I've talked with that has actually raised any questions...

I just honestly don't see how anybody could read the email exchange linked to in the summary and NOT be disgusted...

"I have yet to see *one* criticism of something in the Carlin paper [snip] if you actually looked at the linked comments paper, it attempts to raise questions. Points to new studies, revised data, etc."

Can you point to *one* paragraph, "new study" or "data revision" in the report that you think is worthwhile debating? - All I can see are the same old arguments and misinformation put out out by the anti-science lobbyists at CEI and other FF think tanks that have been debunked a million times over. Here are a few specific critisisims...

1. He claims that tempratures have been trending downwards for the past 11yrs - this can be debunked by a simple google search and is laughable to anyone who has looked at the temprate records.
2. He blathers on about sunspots and cosmic rays - a theory born from a book by a self-agrandising author and completely unsupported in the litrature, debunked in detail by yours trully here.
3. He complains the last IPCC report is 3 years old and thus out of date. - Fucking nonsense.
4. He claims that the 1998 temprature spike cannot be explained - maybe it's a mystery to him but yet another simple google search shows it's well known that the 1998 spike was due to El Nino.

I stopped there because my head was about to explode. Suffice to say that after skimming what I was sure would be 98 pages of anti-science drivel I no longer think he should be sacked, I think he should be prosecuted for collusion and conspiricy.

"all the more reason to not rush through it to satisfy political whims of the day!"

I'm sorry to say, and mean no disrespect, this is exacly what the psuedo-skeptical slimeballs at CEI want you to think. They lost the technical debate over a decade ago and have been promoting "debate" as a delay tactic ever since. These are the same people who promoted "tabacco scientists" in the eighties and are still recieving funding from Phillip Morris. They are the scum of the earth and I don't find it the least bit "bizzare" that the "slashdot crowd" are calling bullshit on this particular example of Machevelian politics.

You might want to catch up on the climatology research a bit.

Did you mean scientology? Just as sound, and just as tolerant of the doubters...

Yeah, 2008 was really cool, being hotter than any year before 2000 save (super-hot) 1998

Actually, the hottest year on record was 1934. NASA screwed up its own methodology, apparently. But even based on your own facts, how do you explain the cool down of the last decade — China and India (and the US, of course) have all only grown their contributions over the years...

Wanna bet what'll happen when that sucker turns the corner and heads back up?

Which "sucker"? The Sun? Oh, no, are you saying, something other than humanity may be responsible? So responsible, that despite rapidly growing contribution by humanity, the climate cooled down anyway?..

Face it, the theory we are urged to follow is full of holes and gives ample ground for perfectly reasonable skepticism. And yet, a vastly expensive initiative is about to forced down our throats based on it.

Heck, Bush's theory of "WMDs in Iraq" had much more going for it (and was less expensive too), but you would burn at the stake anybody, who accepted his argument, wouldn't you? And so, if your requirements or so much less rigorous now, one must suspect, you have some other goal in mind...

. It then goes on to claim that somehow the CO2 STILL causes it.

The first link actually says, "Though this period does not demonstrate greenhouse gas initiated warming, it does lend support to the importance of CO2 and CH4 in setting the planetary thermostat."
The key point is that it has long been suspected that the variation in Earth's climate in the past is usually driven by Milankovitch cycles. What the CO2 and temperature records indicate is that seems to be true. AND that increase in temperature increases CO2 which in turn leads to a higher increase in temperature.
How do I support that CO2 makes it worse, basic physics.
So in reality we do not have CO2 either causes past climate or is driven by the climate. We have both!

That was an interesting article. I think this is worth a read as well.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm

They found in most cases, urban warming was small and fell within uncertainty ranges. Surprisingly, 42% of city trends are cooler relative to their country surroundings as weather stations are often sited in cool islands (eg - a park within the city). The point is they're aware of UHI and rigorously adjust for it when analysing temperature records.

I'm not sure anything of this nature is worth getting hysterical over. We need to be careful and make sure the science is done rigorously. Only at that point can the politicians have a slim chance of not screwing this up.

The thing I don't like about what Christy says there, is that he's using the urban heat island effect as a rationale for cherry-picking his data. The article seems to paint it as a positive thing too. It's not right to dismiss out of hand all of the surface data. First of all, trends related to city growth are already accounted for, at what came out of NASA was. And not all of the surface temps come from the land!

Another thing: I refuse to believe that the majority of climatologists are part of some secret left-wing cabal or something. But Christy wastes no time in using divisive labels like "the alarmist camp" to dismiss his colleagues. You'd hope a guy poring over atmospheric data would learn to deal in specifics rather than generalizations.

Regardless, the main point he brings up is one about the urban heat island effect...that in particular is something that's still debated and his word is not final there. Perhaps he has some novel objection that isn't covered by the corrections already made, but if so, that article didn't get specific enough to need to bring that up.

The link I gave above contains an alternate viewpoint. You may not dig the tone of that site ("what the science says" headings, etc), and I can't say I do either. But it's worth a look.

ROFL, and how, pray tell, do those articles qualify as "30 years" of temperature data that "correlate with the rising temperature trends on Earth in that period." Oh, wait, they don't.

Hell, the Jupiter article isn't about planetary warming at all. And as for Mars, "Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming." (source).

See how I provided a citation for my quote? And how the article linked contains references for its claims? Neat, eh?

According to the National Geographic piece, most climate scientists are skeptical about extraterrestrial warming. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm Most of the the zealotism seems to be among the global warming deniers. They'll jump on anything that appears to refute anthropogenic warming without doing any investigation. Seems like more an excuse to further their own beliefs and behaviours than true skepticism.

So, let me understand. You basically skimmed through the stuff you disagreed with so that you could get to the stuff that told you what you wanted to hear. That response is just weak, and I can't see what you saw in it.

We know for a fact that Jupiter has loads of internal energy, which he entirely ignores. In fact, there's about 60% more energy radiating off the planet than could be explained by the Sun alone. He also spends a bunch of time talking about the Great Red Spot, which actually makes the other guy's point: it's pulling hot air up from Jupiter's depths, where it can be observed.

Jupiter radiates more energy into space than it receives from the Sun. The interior of Jupiter is hot: the core is probably about 20,000 K. The heat is generated by the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism, the slow gravitational compression of the planet. (Jupiter does NOT produce energy by nuclear fusion as in the Sun; it is much too small and hence its interior is too cool to ignite nuclear reactions.) This interior heat probably causes convection deep within Jupiter's liquid layers and is probably responsible for the complex motions we see in the cloud tops. Saturn and Neptune are similar to Jupiter in this respect, but oddly, Uranus is not. [src]

So I think it's safe to say that the Skeptical Scientist is correct: Jupiter's weather has more to do with Jupiter's internals than the Sun.

The other guy's discussion of Neptune leads me to believe that he thinks that any change in a picture must be attributable to the Sun, and also be evidence of warming. Pretty lame.

As the Skeptical Science mentioned elsewhere, there is no observed warming of Jupiter. There is a predicted change in how heat is distributed, based on modeling of some surface phenomena.

As another respondent in the same thread pointed out:

I find interesting that "skeptics" so eagerly recommend taking the enormous amount of highly accurate data available for Earth with a grain of salt (or the all shaker for that matter), while at the same time accepting wild conclusions on poorly understood extra-terrestrial "climates" based on very scant, spotty observations.

Finally, and most important, given that the energy output of the Sun hasn't increased over the last 50 years of direct measurements, what mechanism is responsible for this supposed heat wave?

Bah. I'm feeling lazy. link link link

Some of the planets are warming. Some aren't. Some, we aren't sure. Pluto is easily explained by seasonal changes. None of it has anything to do with what's going on on the Earth.

Next question?

"While I would agree that we are losing ice, what I would want to know is this: how does this compare to the "long warm" we experienced during the middle ages?"

Look at the age of the ice shelves that have collapsed over the last decade or so, does the fact that the ice they are composed of predates the medieval warm period by millenia tell you anything?

"I have yet to see any studies that answer all of these questions."

Then you haven't looked very hard. Your questions are full of incorrect assumptions, false assertions, and ancient red-herrings but here are some terse answers just in case you have been living in a basement for the last decade...

1. Yes, the later half of the 20th century was warmer than the medieval warm period (MWP), the MWP did not last to the little ice age(LIA). Every year in the 21st centry has been hotter than any year in the 20th centutry except 1998.
2. Solar output has gone down over the last decade but temps are still going up albeit on a shallower slope than the 90's. In other words the physical effects of the sun do not make the physical effects of CO2 magically dissapear.
3. The "scientists predicted an ice age in the 70's" is a myth, the myth is based on an article in the Nation Geographic and subsequent newspaper articles. The national academies of science warned humans were warming the world in the 50's, they also said soot has a cooling effect, some people have trouble holding two ideas in their head at the same time.

Since you obviously haven't looked further than outdated right-wing opinion columns here is a list of common myths, you will find most of your post in there.

"I think it is better to have ALL the answers before we order the entire planet to change(and make people like Gore and his "carbon credits" scam rich) don't you?"

AFAIK Gore is already rich. Regardless of what you think Gore says or does, his behaviour does not excuse you from ignoring basic risk management and making alarmist claims on the economy which are unsupported by fact.

"In other words, the IPCC picks and chooses the data that will push the agenda of its supporting members (Kyoto, for example) and backs up the UNFCCC."

Yes it informs the UNFCCC, how many nations in the UNFCCC? I'll leave that as an exercise but the IPCC has 300 odd memeber nations, look it up in the financial records available by searching for "budget" on their site (it's a research method called the original source). Yes, there are a handfull of nations that do not CONTRIBUTE but that has fuck all to do with kyoto. The IPCC is a "state of the science" report written by thousands of scientists using thousands of peer-reviewed papers as input, the papers must be at least a year old so that scientists have time to digest them and see any counter arguments. It's nothing less than a giant fucking textbook that is 2yrs out of date when published. The improbability of getting that many experts to agree on anything virtually dictates that the reports will be scientifically conservative.

In other words it's one of the largest, longest running, and most rigorous, peer-review excercises ever undertaken.

Now before you troll me again with politics we have to agree there is a problem, if you disagree there is a problem then I need to see some extrodinary scientific evidence that one or more of the three basic claims in "the consensus" is either false or exagerated. Since I have been following this shit for 25+yrs I think you will have a hard time but if I didn't look at contra-evidence then I wouldn't be a skeptic would I?

And please, I'm not interested in dragging around red-herrings, give me something orginal, all you have done so far is played the part of the shop keeper in monty python's dead parrot sketch.

As I said before, there is no point in discussing the politics of the issue if you refuse to accept the scientific evidence in favour of your dogmatic belief that (all?) science is agenda driven. Your insistence that it's some sort of conspiracy indicates you have not reasoned yourself into your position. Experience tells me it's unlikely I can reason you out of it since you're the only one who can question your own political dogma with any effectiveness (re: sig below).

You will never understand the problem by analysing the politics but you can often understand the politics by analysing the problem.

This nerd with a lame hat will set you straight, no politics, plain english and way more information that you want. Go to the "no holds barred #1" clip if you want to see a good rundown of where I'm coming from with the IPCC.

One more thing. Your statement that it's closed to non-kyoto nations is bullshit, there are a truckload of scientists and organisation from the US (a non-kyoto nation), including but not limited to NAS, NAAS, NASA, NOAA. Do you even know what the letters WMO stand for?

Yes, yes, one study was debunked. The infamous hockey stick graph was based on incorrect data. However, over ten other non-debunked studies show very similar data, so it's time to grow up and stop complaining about one single tree in a forest.

See these sites for helpful links to other studies, and accurate graphs showing that there is still an obvious issue we need to be concerned about:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/14/01828/236

"Oh? Already forgot how the used October data from Siberia for the November average temp calculation "by mistake". How about the infamous hockey stick graph that totally ignored the medieval warming period? And then there was the Alaska size part of the ocean that was supposed to be open water but when you looked at the raw satellite image was covered in ice? ...and the list goes on..."

It's your perogative to keep repeating the endless list of misinformation from George Will, Andrew Bolt, Dr Ball and other like-minded opinion columnists. However the misinformation you have been fed about Mann is based on the NAS testimony to the senate which if you actually read it does not debunk Mann's hockey stick. Mann did not ignore the MWP, what he said was that the world was now warmer than the during the MWP, the overwhelming majority of published reconstructions agree with him.

The meat of the testiomony: "We also question some of the statistical choices made in the original papers by Dr. Mann and his colleagues. However, our reservations with some aspects of the original papers by Mann et al. should not be construed as evidence that our committee does not believe that the climate is warming, and will continue to warm, as a result of human activities.

Does your bullshit detector not sound an alarm when none of the psuedo-skeptics that have misinformed you ever point to the sources they base their claims on. Does your bullshit detector not go off the scale when it hears the senate wanted to "verify the claims" of one scientific paper, as if it were the only thing that AGW is based on? How about you and others who believe George and his mates actually look at the accuracy of Mann's 1998 forceasts rather than simply regurgitating the bullshit that the opinion columns spoon feed you.

"the Mythbusters have busted this whole sugar in tank myth."

Thanks. No really, I pride myself on the skill of scientific skepticisim and I have learned something from you about sugar in the tank that I didn't know. I will be more carefull with my slashdot car analogies in the future. In an effort to redeem my geek credientials I will repay your genuinely appreciated mythbusting in kind with the following...

"Did you all know the sun is going into a magnetically very quiet period?"

Yes, early last year the 11yr sun spot cycle was indeed out of wack with historical records and AFAIK nobody has a clue why. However climatologists have already accounted for historical measurements of solar irradience. For further information on the data, methods and findings behind the radiative forcings portrayed in that graph have a look here. For a more reader-friendly general overview check here. If you don't like the IPCC or WP then you could always try the USGS

"We will know within a few years if the sun is the more important climate driver or CO2."

The physics that underpins the greenhouse effect has been known for ~180yrs. As can be seen from the link it was "discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in the year 1858 and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in his 1896 paper". Future hypothisized variations in the sun's output may indeed affect the climate but it won't make the observed effects of our greenhouse gasses and areosols disappear, the only thing that can do that is a radical rewrite of fundemental physics and chemistry.

You may also want to check out a list of common climate myths that do not so much debunk George Will as inform you of the things he is forgets to tell you, coincidently they rank the "it's the sun" myth at the top of the list.

There has never been a "this is probably the last year you can ski here" statement from climate scientists. It's straw man attacks like these that make denialists into denialists: instead of criticising the models, the predictions and the findings, you come up with your own stuff. Or you choose to criticise moonbat environmentalist hippies instead of the science.

Exactly right.

For example, the oft-troped canard that scientists claimed we were heading for a new ice age back in the 70's.

Most predictions of an impending ice age came from the popular press (eg - Newsweek, NY Times, National Geographic, Time Magazine). As far as peer reviewed scientific papers in the 1970s, very few papers (7 in total) predicted global cooling. Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming due to CO2.

But of course, the denialists (yes, I'll use that term, because that's what they are) still repeat this debunked claim. In that way, they are damn similar to creationists: Repeating old discredited arguments based on misinformation to back their points.

This means YOU, Anonymous Coward above ("It doesn't help that scientists/politicians/news have claimed the onset of catastrophic climate change in both directions several times before in recent history.")

(Source : http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm )

Its only 35 years ago every "Expert" and "Scientist" (sorry to kill your God here Atheists) was telling us we were heading for a new Ice Age.
Don't take my word for it, look it up.

ok, i did look it up. here are the results: /quote>...They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html

i don't know how you define the word "every, but "7 out of 42" is not certainly not how I would define it.

You know what your problem is? You're trusting "facts" and "logic" (sorry to kill your god here atheists)

The stock answer is it is because the system is so delicately balanced that our small contribution puts it out of balance.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Its only 35 years ago every "Expert" and "Scientist" (sorry to kill your God here Atheists) was telling us we were heading for a new Ice Age.
Don't take my word for it, look it up.

ok, i did look it up. here are the results: /quote>...They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html

i don't know how you define the word "every, but "7 out of 42" is not certainly not how I would define it.

"Yet for some reason Darwin's theory of evolution gets picked out so that teachers must highlight its weaknesses. Why might this be?"

I agree with the GP's point: Pointing out weakness' in a theory is how it becomes stronger.
I agree with your caveate: All disagreements must be intellectually honest.

Evolution is nowhere near as contraversial as when I went to school in the 60's, a time when tectonic plates and black holes were also contraversial, science has convincingly won all three very public arguments over the last 40yrs (150yrs in the case of evolution). Of more immediate concern is the current FUD from global warming psudeo-skeptics (coinidentally they are also particularly strong in Texas). Not that I have anything against Texas but the reason these people make (subtle) anti-science and greenie bashing a political platform could be due to either power/money/ignorance, regardless of which one it is, ignorance amoungst their followers is the sole reason they get away with it.

IMHO Dawkins and Sagan are correct in that science is taught as a "dictonary of facts", the philosophy of science is largely ignored by the education system and consequently misunderstood/ignored by the public at large. Evidence for this is not hard to find, just count the number of "climate fools" here on slashdot, they espouse all manner of nerdy sounding but thougoughly debunked scientific red-herrings, not because they are stupid but becuase their lack of understanding as to what "scientific skepticisim" means makes them easy prey for intellectually dishonest politicians and their sponsors.

Due to the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence I can no longer belive a politician can (legitimately) keep using ignorance as an excuse to poo-poo global warming and/or evolution. Therefore the root cause of the cherry-picked "science" found in the opinion columns of the mass-media and subsequently regurgitated by a million ignorant bloggers - must be money and/or power.

Premptive Al Gore reply: I'm not from the US, I haven't seen his film. I had already read the IPCC reports and didn't see the point, from the reviews of Gore's film by IPCC scientists, (and later their answers to critics), I would have to conclude his slide show was an accurate representation of the reports. OTOH: Just because the doco is accurate does not mean Gore's motivations for presenting it are intellectually honest.

Yes 20yrs ago it was an interesting idea based on the observation that dust from deserts fertilizes the oceans (eg: 40M tons of dust is transported by wind from N. Africa all the way to the Amazon each year, so the Atlantic ocean already recieves a nice dusting in the summer. The results from dumping iron dust have been inconclusive at best, but even if it did work as well as the promoters claim the problem would then be scale and distribution.

The simplest answer given by the overwhelming majority of scientists who have looked at the problem (including Lovelock), is to cut back emmissions from ~10Gt/yr to ~3Gt/yr as fast or faster than we built them up, in otherwords moderate our current uncontrolled experiment in geo-engineering as rapidly as possible. However to some people the idea of emmission controls amounts to social-engineering and an economic acpocalypse, thus we get the political bullshit, half-truths, think tanks, and psuedo-skeptics that have accompanied any discussion of climate over the last couple of decades.

Sorry, it was a dead-tree item. Also, they weren't predicting "Gobal Freezing" - they were predicting global warming back then as well. You may be thinking of "Nuclear Winter" ... :-)

As you can see from this link, scientists wren't predicting global freezing ...

1970's ice age predictions were predominantly media based with the majority of scientific papers predicting warming.

Most predictions of an impending ice age came from the popular press (eg - Newsweek, NY Times, National Geographic, Time Magazine). As far as peer reviewed scientific papers in the 1970s, very few papers (7 in total) predicted global cooling. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of global cooling, significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming due to CO2. More on 1970s science...

Rasool and Schneider's ice age "projection"

The main study cited by skeptics is Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate (Rasool 1971). The paper doesn't actually predict an ice age. Instead, it projects a possible scenario - if aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 times then sustained those levels for several years, it may trigger an ice age. Historically, what happened was aerosol levels fell. While it's unclear whether Rasool's calculations re aerosol cooling were accurate, one inaccuracy was they underestimated climate's sensitivity to CO2 by a factor of 3.

In the decades since their 1971 paper, many studies constraining climate sensitivity calculate that if atmospheric CO2 was doubled, global temperatures would rise around 3C. These studies employ different methods (modelling, calculations from empirical observations) looking at different time periods (the 20th century, the Holocene, past ice ages), different aspects of climate (surface temperature, mid-tropospheric temperature, ocean heat intake) and response to different forcings (volcanic, CO2, solar). More on climate sensitivity...

Or better yet, read this.

Can't you deniers come up with anything new?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

It's closer to 95 percent, and scientists are skeptics by nature.

It's not the media that came up with this figure.

From http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Klaus-Martin Schulte surveyed peer reviewed abstracts from 2004 to February 2007 and claims 32 studies (6%) reject the consensus position.

You can read further at that site...only a fraction of those papers actually (a) reject the consensus and (b) advance some sort of scientific argument in the process.

Rather than demanding simplistic answers that fit their politcs, scientists put error bars on things that are uncertain such as clouds. Clouds are not ignored they are simply not well understood, the affect of cosmic rays on clouds is even LESS well understood and like the Hadley center, I fail to see how a lack of an observable trend in cosmic rays results in an observable trend in clouds. Also kind of strange how the climate does not cycle over 11yrs in tune with the cosmic rays from sunspots.

Mis-informative would be a better tag for your post, if the evidence was based soley on extrapolation of tempratures then you might have cause to dissmiss it as speculation. As it stands your post is just another lame political troll using the same tired old arguments that have been debunked to death.

BTW: The phrase "climate change" was coined by SKEPTICS in the early 90's, they pointed out that the term "global warming" implied a certain conclusion - both terms are literally correct.

3 decades ago, scientists were worrying about a new ice age.

No, in fact, they were not.

Due to some harsh winters - at least on the East Coast of the U.S. - the possibility of a cooling trend captured the public imagination in the 1970s, and made a splash in the popular press. However, this was never the scientific consensus. Between 1965 to 1979, 42 papers predicted a warming trend; 7 predicted cooling.

Of course, only a few decades ago doctors were advising patients to take up cigarette smoking; the fact that today's best scientific knowledge is different than that of several decades ago is no argument that we had better knowledge then!

We know from past evidence that the Earth naturally experiences "global warming" to melt ice ages and cools back down again.

We know from past experience that human beings naturally experience unconsciousness in a daily cycle. That doesn't means that if you knock somebody on the head and they are KO'd, that their sleep cycle is responsible.

How about the recent stories which prove that glaciers in the north have been *growing*?

A handful of glaciers are indeed growing. The vast majority are shrinking, and they are shrinking much more than the handful of anomalous ones are growing.

A handful of unusual data points in a complex system does not prove a trend. It's as if you were to argue, "Scientists *say* that cigarette smoking will damage your health. But I know one guy who smoked and lived to a ripe old age. Therefore, these `scientific' findings are clearly the result of some politically-motivated anti-tobacco conspiracy."

but our climate "experts" were claiming in the 1970's that we were destined for an ice age.

Except, no, they weren't.

There was much less data available three decades ago (duh!), but even still there 7 peer-reviewed papers in the 1970s predicting global cooling. There were 42 predicting warming.

And believe it or not, science tends to progress over the years. Decades ago doctors endorsed cigarettes, but no one even tries to cite that as a counter to the idea that cigarette smoking causes cancer and heart disease.

There was a brief spike of "OMG ice age!" stories in the popular press in the 1970s. Why? Because we had some nasty winters (at least on the East Coast) in the 70s, so the idea of an ice age (proposed in a minority of papers based on inadequate data) captured the popular imagination.

The idea that there was scientific consensus - or even a strong suspicion - in the 1970s predicting an ice age is pure bunk.

Unless we radically cahnge our economy-- empower government, and ultimately live life the way they want us to.

Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Your right to pollute the air ends where my lungs begin. Neither of these concepts requires a overly-powerful government to enforce.

We now understand that CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are a form of pollution that damages the biosphere.

No. The sun has shown a slight cooling trend over the last 3 decades. Not only is the sun not contributing to global warming, it has had a slight, long term cooling effect.

Determining the long term solar trend
(There are numerous peer reviewed science journal papers referenced in that link.)

Have you not been paying attention? The dispute on the influence of the SUN and whatever is also warming Mars. Sorry, I didn't think it needed spelled out.

And yet, still, no links or references. Just discussion of some mysterious, anonymous "scientists". And you completely ignore the rest of my post, probably because you have no rebuttal.

So, how about *I* provide a link discussing the topic of "warming" on Mars. Oh, and before you start, here's a link discussing the "warming" on Jupiter. Alright, now it's your turn.

Meanwhile, ask yourself: If GW is due to solar forcing, why aren't we seeing the exact same trends on Venus? Or Neptune? Or Saturn? Or Jupiter (no, Jupiter is not experiencing GW, see the preceding link)? Why just Earth and Mars?

Or, maybe it's just the obvious: Earth and Mars are both experiencing independent climate change, but for different reasons, neither of which is related to solar output. But the anti-AGW folks need *some* sort of proof, and so they're cherrypicking their results, and then claiming victory.

Why should I re-invent the wheel? I'm representing the conventional viewpoint. If you wish to dispute current scientific thought then you must provide evidence. However, in the interests of expediance, here you go.
On the warming of planets:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11642

So, your contention fails. Not all the planets are warming. Further, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you finger the Sun as the main culprit here, although you didn't explicitly state that. However, solar output hasn't increased since we've begun specifically measuring it in '78.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

Now to the Ice cores:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11640
If anyone takes the time to read through the above links they will discover that there are many factors that can and have influenced global temperatures in the past. (As the skeptics continually refer) Some of these factors include, Solar luminosity, Cloud formation, particulate in the air, Carbon Dioxide and so on. If there is a big change in any of the factors that control climate (which there has been in the past)then you would expect to see an effect on climate. CO2 records from ice cores DO match up well with the CO2 record but there are cases where they don't. HOWEVER: these deviances are satisfactorily explained by the presence of other factors over-riding the effect of CO2 during a specific geologic era. What's happening today is that we are altering the climate mainly by heavily altering the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Yes, please draw me a picture that shows how a 500 year cycle accounts for a 30 year temperature increase that is supposedly now going away.

A couple casual articles with scientific references:

Urban Heat Island effect
Satellite show little to no warming in the troposphere

Yes, please draw me a picture that shows how a 500 year cycle accounts for a 30 year temperature increase that is supposedly now going away.

A couple casual articles with scientific references:

Urban Heat Island effect
Satellite show little to no warming in the troposphere