VERY weird. The video above of Rachel's interview with Muller keeps changing to a surf video! Happening to anybody else???

Seems to be working now.

Muller is now current with 1980's climate science.

Isn't cement part of the Koch roach brothers empire?

Will Muller get a pair of booties and a push of the Golden Gate?

When is Berkeley educated Dr. Michael Savage going to come over to the light side?

Probably never because he brags about owning 2 yachts that are really expensive.

Much more than than all of those 1 yacht owning UC Berkeley elitists liberal professors that are overpaid or boat owning high school teachers or police officers or firemen.

The dark side pays extremely well.

There is an experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect does not exist. This experiment which has been peer reviewed by Ph.D physicists (at least 4). Ph.D. Chemical engineers (at least 2 at last count) and others Ph. D’s in other fields The experiment is found on the web-site http:// www.slayingtheskydragon.com click on the blog tab then on page 2 of 10. . It is titled "The Experiment that failed which can save the world trillions-Proving the greenhouse gas effect does not exist”

The Greenhouse Effect Explored
Written by Carl Brehmer | 26 May 2012
Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or Negative?
Exploiting the medium of Youtube Carl Brehmer is drawing wider attention to a fascinating experiment he performed to test the climatic impacts of water in our atmosphere.
Carl explains, “An essential element of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is the positive “water vapor feedback” hypothesis. That is, if something causes an increase in the temperature this will cause an increase in the evaporation of water into water vapor.”

Another important website is www. The Great Climate Clash.com -G3 The Greenhouse gas effect does not exist.

This really is funny. You and RM have been duped.
"...the opposite of 'in accord' with its funder's political position..." sez RM.

Dr. Muller sez we have to do two things and I will paraphrase:
1) become more efficient users of energy
2) move away from coal to natural gas (in developing countries)

Koch Industries has no interest in natural gas? Will they benefit from a move from coal to natural gas in developing countries.

Who was Muller's target BTW...listen carefully. Was he pounding on the USA...more wind more solar more geothermal??? Nope. Run the tape.

What Koch has done is use the good Dr. to further their interests. In reality, I think they only invested $150K (I could be wrong) but that was money well spent. Chump change (not to be confused with choom gang change, or hope and change). Koch may have expected something different...who knows? Bottom line...they are in the energy business...they would pivot as necessary.

BTW Desi...I planted this RM video in your head.

Hope you guys are smiling today...it has been a great day for old Davey...finished a project...billed my clients...enjoyed the afterglow of a tparty win and enjoyed chic-fil-a lunch!!

This'll make you even happier, Davey. Big piece on Rachel Maddow tonight on how Romney was caught repeatedly lying about his taxes when he ran for governor in Massachusetts. Same sorta shit he's saying now about his recent tax returns. Trust him is what his campaign said then as they were lying through their teeth. Trust us what they're saying again now. What's so attractive to you about people who hold your capacity to discern truth in such low regard, who count on you to not care if they're lying or not? Aren't you a Rush fan, too? Just curious.

David,

Rachel to me is like Rush to you. I do not believe a word she says. You don't believe a word Rush says, so lets move on.

But, to the happiness question..., well

No hay problemo aqui.

Davey Crocket @ 8 said:

Rachel to me is like Rush to you. I do not believe a word she says. You don't believe a word Rush says, so lets move on.

I don't "believe" either one of them. Much as I tell folks not to "believe" me on anything, I feel responsible for proving my case. The same holds true for anybody in the media.

So here's the difference, "Davey", between Maddow and Limbaugh. While neither of them are to be simply "believed", Maddow does her best, and usually succeeds at proving her case with independently verifiable information. You don't have to simply "believe" her. Yes, she gets it wrong from time to time, as I've pointed out (eg. here), but for the most part she's right on the money and has the verifiable facts to back it up.

On the other hand, Rush Limbaugh just makes shit up. Just pulls shit out of his ass in order to con folks like you into supporting his political point of view.

Yes, both Maddow and Limbaugh have a political point of view, but only one of them has to make shit up out of whole cloth to trick you into "believing" them.

But if you are looking for fake (and easily debunked) "facts" to back up your pre-conceived hopes and political beliefs, Rush is definitely your man. Enjoy!

"No hay problemo aqui" !?!

Davey, your egregious, anti-American and sissy multiculturalism has been reported to the wrathful RushBo.

Mr. Crocket,

I'd like to second everything Brad said.

All opinions are not equal for obvious and stated reasons.

Here's a link to Rush's Reign of Error: The Way Things Aren't. It catalogs some of Limbaugh's mistakes. Can you take a hard look at one of the supports to your belief system or do you prefer the unexamined life?
http://www.amazon.com/Th...trageously/dp/156584260X

My point had nothing to do with Romney or Rush. Rachel, only because she anchored the video. My point was that Koch may have gotten what they paid for in the Muller research. He may now be a shill for natural gas interests (which includes Koch).

Deficiencies in the Global Climate Models have been demonstrated in their total failure to predict the flat average global temperature trend since about 2001. I graph the average global temperature anomaly data by month as reported by all five agencies and the CO2 level from Mauna Loa. The data are provided by various government agencies and include both surface and satellite measurements.

Use of these sources avoids the delay, bias and de facto censoring of ‘peer review’. I compare the temperatures for validity and average them to avoid bias. The average global temperature trend has been approximately flat for over a decade while the atmospheric CO2 level has increased by over 25% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001. I wonder how wide this separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising temperature will need to get for some people to realize that maybe they missed something.

Davey Crocket @12,

To me your initial point was to mock those who disagree with you.

Then when the conversation evolved into some other area, like who's a reliable source and who's not, you got lazy and unresponsive and as seems typical of rigid thinkers you just ignore the conversation as if everything that had just been said in rebuttal had not just been said. You seem incapable of dealing in any kind of meaningful way with alternative viewpoints and evidence that challenge your preferred beliefs.

That's a big difference between me and you. I HAVE to look at the other side to see if they might be right and I might be fooling myself. That's one of the reasons I've read Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Beck.

You and other tea party people I know don't do that. When I take the trouble to deconstruct some neocon offering from you or wingnutsteve, you guys usually respond by focusing on one tiny aspect of what was written, avoid everything else, and all too often fall back on that old favorite--he/she's/you're stupid, or a nut, or a liberal, or a socialist, or a comedian. A non-argument completely devoid of substance.

Brad just took the time to give you an intelligent, articulate rebuttal to something you said. You completely ignored it. Rude, dude.

You and wingnutsteve are playing by decidedly different rules than I. You don't really commit to the discussion. You seem completely uninterested in testing your opinions/beliefs against alternative narratives, evidence, and reason. You deconstruct nothing. You take a dump and leave.

To me this speaks of a fearful outlook that can't stand the light of day. And in so far as engaging in reasoned debate you guys seem incredibly lazy. You don't put in much effort. Your main objective seems to be to get your rocks off. Just like Rush.

Dan @13

Indeed. Here is Dr. Christy's presentation before the Senate. http://www.youtube.com/w...lepage&v=KDFH0Hs4Q8s

We do not know what nature will do. It is unlikely that humans can affect climate change one way or the other. If humans can affect climate change, it is probably out at 3sigma or beyond. We need to adapt to what nature gives...that is the smart approach.

Dan Pangburn @14,

So the consensus of thousands of scientists worldwide is completely wrong and you've got the truth, eh?

I'm not a scientist. But I do read a lot. I also try to pay attention. I keep on reading how the average global temperature is rising. My experience is that it IS hotter and it IS more humid. That's my subjective experience and it seems right in synch with the scientific consensus.

My friend in Illinois says it was in the hundreds for weeks. She never saw anything like it. My sister in Iowa said the same thing. And when she'd go out to the garden she'd be covered in SCORES of ticks in no time. Apparently none of them died cuz the winter was so mild. I read/hear/experience this kind of thing over and over and over again.

What planet are you living on? If it's Earth, maybe you should check those numbers a few more times. Cuz I agree, somebody's missing something.

David @14,

If I were mocking anyone, I suppose perhaps Rachel. She was giddy with enthusiasm over this Muller thing and I think she has been duped. I could be wrong of course, but Muller has had an epiphany, I would expect something different than..."Hey lets do natural gas!"

THAT WAS MY WHOLE POINT!

I read everything BTW...including the Bradblog. I have taken the time to read a few of the zillion climate articles posted by Desi. I read others as well. I am an avid Watts fan.

I did not intend to bring Rush, Beck, et al. into this discussion. Not sure why you and Brad did.

I looked back at Brad's "intelligent, articulate rebuttal" and it is not clear to me what I am to rebut. I think Brad just called me an idiot (in so many words). OK, I rebut...I am not an idiot/lemming/sycophant...

I will AFK for perhaps 24 hrs so if you respond and I fail to "rebut" don't get your panties in a wad.

Relax and have a nice day David.

Here's another interview with Richard Muller, from Democracy Now:
http://www.democracynow....funded_scientist_richard

Davey Crocket @ 17,

No thanks. Not buying. You can keep all that.

Here's a rebuttal of Davey Crocket's witness on climate change, Dr. John Christy. You decide. In my opinion this kind of nonsense is criminally stupid.

http://thinkprogress.org...y-spencer-say/?mobile=nc

Could not help another post...argh!

Thanks Brett for the post! I watched the video and it was excellent. Actually I like Muller. I will wait for the peer review process on the papers under review. I think he is giving great advice.

In fact, I love this guy!

Watch the video David!!

I watched the video.

While I'm glad Dr. Muller is finally catching up to what has been the scientific consensus on man-made global warming for some time, I do not love this guy. I'm not sure he's got the big picture even half right.

Some of what he says makes no sense to me. For instance, my understanding is that there is no way to know for sure how much any particular weather event can be attributed to global warming or not. We just aren't smart enough to know that. Weather is too complicated.

Muller, on the other hand, asserts unequivocally that recent events(Katrina, this year's heat wave) are NOT related to man-made global warming. Could we see the data on that one, please? If you can't know it either way, how's he knowing it in one of them?

My understanding is also that though attribution for specific events is difficult or impossible, scientists can predict trends. I keep on reading that not only are the predicted trends occurring(hell, I can look out my window and see extraordinary rain bursts happening regularly), they're happening alarmingly faster than previously predicted. The latest being the unprecedented thaw of Greenland.

It sounds like Muller thinks maybe none of this is happening. Or that it couldn't possibly be related to man-made global warming. Aren't there already island populations who've already been displaced cuz their islands are now underwater? Hasn't that already happened?

This guy does not seem to be a man of vision about the likely consequences of global warming. He's a guy who was dead wrong and now he's got some of it right. I'm not inclined to take him on faith for other stuff that still sounds dead wrong to me. And regarding politics his remarks, like what the Koch brothers stand for, seem incredibly naive.

For my money Bill McKibben has the proper perspective. We're already past the tipping point. We have to keep fossil fuel in the ground. 'Course it would require us to change. I suspect that is why Davey Crocket, Dr. Muller, and so many others across the political spectrum have such a hard time grocking it.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/07/24-2

Ya know it mighta been helpful if Dr. Muller had explained how all those other scientists with all their, according to him, sketchy data managed to get it so right so much earlier than he did.

Davey @ 15
Thanks for the link to Dr. Christy’s presentation. It is worthy of a look for anyone actually interested in future climate.

A simple equation that, using readily available measurements, calculates average global temperatures since 1895 with 88% accuracy is at http://climaterealists.c...tid=145&linkbox=true . Including the influence of carbon dioxide increases accuracy by 0.5%.

Other pdfs there describe why the Global Climate Models fail, etc.

David @16
What all of those scientists agreed to is that the average global temperature increased in the 20th century and that human activity may have contributed. I don’t know of anyone that disagrees with that. What I have discovered is what the climate drivers actually are.

People who claim that the planet is still warming since 2001 are either uninformed or are cherry picking data. The trend is down. Look at what the agencies report, not what people that think like you claim.

The area of the entire US is less than 2% of the area of the planet. It is really naïve to conclude that what is going on at some particular point is indicative of what the planet is doing.

All that Muller did was verify the temperatures that others had measured. And he did it by sampling a small percentage of them.

Sorry Pangburn,

Not believable.

The notion that thousands of scientists from all over the world(and now this former global warming skeptic, too) are cherry picking numbers or are misinformed seems beyond unlikely. Are you gonna tell me that the Northwest Passage unprecedented opening is due to cherry picking numbers or being uninformed? Is Greenland cherry picking and uniformed when it has an unprecedented melting also. Did the Carteret Islanders evacuate their home cuz someone was cherry picking numbers or misinformed?

Not credible.

Dan Pangburn @23 wrote:

What all of those scientists agreed to is that the average global temperature increased in the 20th century and that human activity may have contributed.

Their conclusions, now shared by Dr. Muller, are that global temperatures have risen and will continue to rise and that there is a definitive correlation between that rise and man-made, greenhouse gas emissions, period!

Pangburn next postulates:

People who claim that the planet is still warming since 2001 are either uninformed or are cherry picking data.

NASA studies reveal that you are flat out wrong! Average global temperatures have continued to rise over the past decade.

But let's just examine a Reuter's article that appeared last month:

While you are correct in stating that the U.S. represents less than 2% of the world's land mass, the important number is 29, representing the percentage of the world's CO2 emissions that originated in the U.S.

If you are really interested in what climate experts are actually saying, I'd strongly recommend Storms of My Grandchildren by Dr. James Hansen.

If not, then we'll simply assume that yours is but the latest dissembling piece of climate change denial propaganda to appear here at The BRAD BLOG.

From Bill McKibben's piece linked to above @22--

June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

Meteorologists reported that this spring was the warmest ever recorded for our nation – in fact, it crushed the old record by so much that it represented the "largest temperature departure from average of any season on record." The same week, Saudi authorities reported that it had rained in Mecca despite a temperature of 109 degrees, the hottest downpour in the planet's history.

Anyone one who wants to follow Pangburn and Crocket into the black hole of climate change denial does so at their own peril.

The rest of us will be here in the light working on all the shit that so desperately needs attention firmly rooted in reality paid to it.

David @24 and Ernest@25
I repeat, I graph the anomaly data reported by all five agencies. It is interesting that you cherry picked GISS, ignoring the other four reporting agencies (are you aware of them?). GISS average anomaly for the 11 years 2001 thru 2011 is 0.54C. Average for 2011 is 0.51C. Average for 2012 thru June is 0.50C.

The average for all five agencies for the years 2001 thru 2011 is 0.40C. Average for 2011 is 0.35C. (The huge effective thermal capacitance of the oceans will slow the decline trend to about -0.1C per decade).

Not only are you misinformed, you are even misinformed about the agency that you cherry picked. If you had followed the link provided above you could have found sub-links to the agencies’ data.

Melting ice demonstrates that it IS warmer, not that it is still getting warmer. I repeat what I said @23 above, I don’t know of anyone that disagrees that the planet got warmer during the 20th century. I certainly don’t disagree. In fact, as I said above, I developed an equation that calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 88%. Including the influence of CO2 increases the accuracy by about 0.5%.

Weather addresses the movement of energy about the planet and is an extremely complex problem. Average global temperature, however, is a problem in thermodynamics and radiation heat transfer. It is a fairly simple problem for a mechanical engineer like me. Some so-called Climate Scientists are meteorologists who have tried to predict climate using weather tools. Their efforts have failed as discussed at comment #13 above.

Hansen’s PhD is in astronomy. He has a vested interest in clinging to the AGW mistake. Anything that he or his underlings do or say should be interpreted in that context.

Pangburn,

I have no idea what you are talking about with the technical shit. So I'm sorry I can't make my ass available for you to blow smoke up. My Momma taught me to avoid smoke blowing strangers who speak incomprehensibly.

But if you're right and the worldwide scientific consensus is wrong, and has been wrong for decades, I'm really looking forward to your peer-reviewed work taking the scientific world by storm and catapulting you to superstardom for showing thousands and thousands of scientists worldwide to have gotten it so wrong for so long.

If and when that happens, I will apologize and admit that I was wrong for believing them and for so seriously doubting you. But until that unlikely day, I'll be stickin' with-- you sound completely full of it.

Dan Panburn @ 13

Deficiencies in the Global Climate Models have been demonstrated in their total failure to predict the flat average global temperature trend since about 2001.

If you knew anything about GCM's you would know that they wouldn't be expected to predict a flattening of the temperature curve for a decade or so. That's not how they work. They predict the 30 year running average for global temperature. If temperatures stay flat for another 10 years or so then maybe there's a problem.

Dan Panburn @ 27

Hansen’s PhD is in astronomy.

Dr. Hansen is an astrophysicist. He started out studying the atmosphere of Venus then applied what he learned to the other planets including Earth. He is eminently qualified to do the work he does.

David @28
Climate Science is . . . well . . . science. The assessment of it is technical. You have disqualified yourself.

Riverat @29 & 30
You have revealed that you have been egregiously misinformed about GCM’s. If you actually have any interest in finding out about them and why they have failed, read the pdf made public 8/11/10 at the link given at comment # 23.

Hansen has a vested interest in perpetrating belief in the mistake of AGW.

Dan Pangburn, have you submitted your calculations disproving the global scientific consensus on climate change to the world's scientific research bodies and organizations?

The global scientific community would be very interested in any alternative explanation that definitively demonstrates a cause other than CO2 that matches the observed warming in the atmosphere and oceans, the observed trend toward accelerated ocean acidification, and the temperature data that shows the last ten years have been the hottest ten years on record. (before posting the usual zombie denier myths, please pre-bunk yourself at SkepticalScience.com. New research only, please)

Many of them are parents and grandparents who would really, really, really like to be proven wrong with real-world, verifiable data. They'd love to see actual data --- rather than the fever-dream conspiracy theories of climate deniers, desperately clinging to the notion that we can continue to pollute the biosphere forever with no consequences. The climate change denial industry pays extremely well for this research, and a huge payday would be showered upon anyone who can definitively disprove the scientific data.

@Desi comment #32

My method, justification, equation, data sources and results are all provided at the link given at comment #23. The results are verifiable by anyone competent with a spread sheet.

The growing problem that Warmers have with blaming CO2 for most of the temperature rise is described in comment #13 as is the observation that it stopped getting warmer more than a decade ago. The temperature anomalies are provided in comment #27.

Saying that the temperatures at the end of a warming period are warmer is not very profound.

Sorry, Dan @#33, but there is no 'growing problem' with the global scientific consensus on climate change. The exits are closing for the climate change deniers, but they continue to try.

It's interesting to note that proponents of denial never talk about the 'evil twin' of global warming --- ocean acidification.

Dan, your opinion is among the far outliers. Until your calculations can stand up to formal peer review --- like the work of all climate scientists who have spent their lives obtaining the training and education necessary to evaluate the data --- simply saying 'they can check my website' falls far below the most basic standard of proof. Good luck with your quest to overturn the vast body of climate science.

For those who are interested in the actual state of climate science --- and what the uncertainties actually are, not what the deniers say they are --- please check out the database of zombie denier myths at SkepticalScience.com.

BTW, Dan et al, even the conservative International Energy Agency says you and other climate skeptics are not only wrong but dangerously wrong. ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson says climate deniers are wrong, too.

Demonstrating that climate is not sensitive to the CO2 level is not difficult. It is a simple calculation, not an opinion. Links to all of the data are available through the link in comment #23. Look at the temperature trend since 2001. It's flat. No increase. Look at the CO2 level. Since 2001 it has increased by 25% of the increase from 1800 to 2001. This demonstrates that average global temperature is insensitive to atmospheric CO2.

The discovery of climate drivers is not so simple. An understanding of thermodynamics, radiation heat transfer and some calculus is necessary. The primary discovery is that the time-integral of sunspot numbers (appropriately reduced by the energy radiated from the planet) is an excellant proxy for energy retained by the planet. When this is combined with ocean thermal oscillation (which is dominatd by PDO) the result matches temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of of 88%. Again, this is not an opinion, it is a calculation.

Oh, Dan @#36...

Your childlike belief that you have managed to single-handedly overturn the vast body of climate science --- and even physics itself --- with a spreadsheet is... wrong simplistic. How do you respond to the actual trained atmospheric scientists whose studies show your claim that the globe is cooling is just plain wrong? Simply put, your 'global cooling' is a common zombie denier lie that has been disproved time and again. BTW, how do your calculations factor in accelerating ocean acidification?

I hope you will challenge your assumptions and conclusions with the actual primary scientific literature at SkepticalScience.com. It is tiresome to have to repeatedly point out that your claims have already been addressed and debunked.

Desi @36

If you actually understood the physics, you would know better.

If you won’t even look . . .

None are so blind as those who will not see.

Dan, I am not a physicist. Neither are you. The fact that you believe you know better than the world's physicists and the global scientific community, and yet repeat the same zombie climate denier myths that have been debunked over and over again, makes this particularly hilarious:

>If you won’t even look . . .None are so blind as those who will not see.

Exactly!

Also, Dan, I'll ask again: How do you respond to the actual trained atmospheric scientists whose studies show your claim that the globe is cooling is just plain wrong? How do account for the discrepancy?

See Comment #27. Your lack of understanding of science has made you gullible.

Anyone not already aware that the planet has stopped warming is advised to do something that you refuse to do: Look at temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide data for the last decade. It is not hard. All five agencies report on the web. You can find all of the links in my stuff or you can use your own search engine. I graph them all which you can see at the pdf made public 11/24/11 at http://climaterealists.c...tid=145&linkbox=true

Okaaaay, Dan. FYI, simply asserting that I don't 'understand science' does not constitute an evidence-based explanation for the discrepancies between your conclusions and those of the global scientific community.

Please explain how your work disproves studies that show your claim that the globe is cooling is wrong. How do you rebut the work of those who, like physicist Dr. Richard Muller, say the factors you promote are insufficient to account for the observed warming, and that only the carbon curve fits the observations? Do you include ocean temperature data and Russian Arctic station data? Also, how do your calculations explain accelerating ocean acidification? Please explain for our non-scientists here how the globe can be cooling when 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 2000. The strategy of the American Petroleum Institute, leaders in the climate change denial industry, is to sow uncertainty and doubt among the non-scientist American public. Why should readers here find you more credible than the global scientific community - do they not 'understand science' either?

Desi @ #42
Average GLOBAL temperature anomalies are reported on the web by NOAA, GISS, Hadley, RSS and UAH. This is the data that I use. The first three all draw from the same pool of surface measurement data. The last two draw from a common pool of satellite measurements. Each agency processes the data slightly differently from the others. Each believes that their way is most accurate. To avoid bias, I average all five. The averages are listed here.

2001 0.3473
2002 0.4278
2003 0.4245
2004 0.3641
2005 0.4663
2006 0.3930
2007 0.4030
2008 0.2598
2009 0.4022
2010 0.5298
2011 0.3317

A straight line (trend line) fit to this data has no slope. That means that, for over a decade, average global temperature has not changed and that is the basis for my statement that the planet "...stopped warming".

The level of atmospheric carbon dioxide has been measured at various places and times over the years. The data showed that the level is quite the same irrespective of the location. As a result, now the atmospheric carbon dioxide level is measured and reported only from Mauna Loa Hawaii. I averaged and interpolated a few points to get a best estimate for 1800 of 281.64 ppmv. The average value for 2001 was 371.13 and the value for June 2012 is 393.48. Thus since 2001 the atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 25% of the increase from 1800 to 2001.

No amount of spin can rationalize that the CO2 increase caused the temperature increase to 2001 but that 25% additional CO2 increase had no effect on temperature after 2001.

If you had clicked on the link and observed my work you would see that it DOES account for the observed warming, since accurate measurements world wide have been made, with an accruacy of 88%. Including the influence of CO2 only increased the accuracy by 0.5%. The time-integral of sunspots is an accurate proxy that I discovered for the net energy retained by the planet. If climate scientists didn't have blinders on they might have discovered it.

Pointing out that it is warmest at the end of a warming period is not very profound and says nothing about whether it is still warming.

I did click on your work, Dan. You don't include ocean temperature data.

Again, if your calculation shows "warming has stopped", how is it that nine out of the last ten years were the hottest years on record? Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used the same 5 data sets; how did they come to the opposite conclusion?:

"When the fluctuations in temperature over the last 32 years (which tend to obscure the continuation of the global warming trend) are accounted for, it becomes obvious that there has not been any cessation, or even any slowing, of global warming over the last decade (or at any time during this time span). In other words, any deviations from an unchanging linear warming trend are explained by the influence of ENSO, volcanoes and solar variability....It is worthy of note that for all five adjusted data sets, 2009 and 2010 are the two hottest years on record....All five data sets show statistically significant warming even for the time span from 2000 to the present."

What do you know that they don't? It's really too bad that you haven't submitted your work for peer review, as scientists with professional expertise in these disciplines have done, as it would provide valuable context for non-scientists. I'm sure you can understand how asserting that the world's scientists, across multiple disciplines, got it wrong because they have "blinders on" --- or are just not as good at understanding science as you --- strains credulity, and isn't really a convincing rebuttal.