Oh where to begin to chronicle the deliberate dishonesty of the academicians and governments who foist this AGW claptrap on the ignorant.
Ever hear of East Anglia University and "hide the decline"?
Yes, and I know what it means, which deniers like you don't because you never ever read any science, only denier web sites like the ones you posted. ClimateDepot is run by Marc Morano, a far right ideologue and industry lobbyist who was Rush Limbaugh's reporter and producer and helped tobacco companies deny that tobacco causes cancer. You swallow the rubbish at those denier sites, not because they are "excellent", but because they say what you want to hear. You talk about me being in a bubble, but I have probably spent more time reading your sites than you have, plus Joanne Nova, Judith Curry, and a host of others. You, OTOH, spend no time reading actual climate science.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm
http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.hidethedecline.asp
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15538845
Ever hear of a peer-reviewed climate change article that relied on a single article- proven false- that the Himalayan glaciers were all melting to further AGW theory? No? You really need to get out of your bubble more often.
What ignorant climate science deniers don't grasp is that climate scientists have heard all your talking points a thousand times. It is you, not we, who are in a bubble. Usually you folks can't even get your talking points right because you know nothing about the subject other than what you hear from other deniers in your game of telephone. It was not a "a peer-reviewed climate change article", it was one paragraph in the 2007 IPCC report, which among many many other things contained a statement that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 (they
are all melting away, but not that quickly). The statement was not from a peer-reviewed article, but rather from a media interview with a climate scientist. The IPCC withdrew the statement, saying the claim was poorly substantiated and didn't meet the standards of evidence required by IPCC procedures. It was one mistake out of thousands upon thousands of valid points in a 3000 page report but climate science deniers, lacking any scruples, never mention any of the other points, just the one mistake, and they can't be bothered to even remotely get the details right.
Every single one of your points has been repeatedly refuted but you are unaware of and uninterested in the refutation. All you have is denier talking points, just as Creationists will ask "Ever heard of Piltdown Man?" or quote a passage out of context of Darwin saying how unprobable it is for an eye to evolve, or claiming that evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or other ignorant rot. Climate science deniers use the exact same strategy ... and some of them are the same people, for instance Roy Spencer, who is a Young Earth Creationist. Climate science deniers will take everything Spencer says on faith because it agrees with their views, while dismissing the thousands of climate scientists who say what they don't want to hear.
I note that weather reports ten days out tend to be accurate only about 60% of the time...and yet you believe that weather forecasts for 25, 50 even 75 years in the future are 100% accurate? Are you >THAT< gullible? It appears that you are.
It should be, but isn't, remarkable, that climate science deniers so blatantly and obviously lie. I of course do not think that weather forecasts years in the future are 100% accurate and nothing I said suggests that, but you have no trouble saying that I do because you have no scruples, and because you are completely lacking in understanding of climate science. Your statement is akin to Ray Comfort asserting that people who believe in evolution think that dogs can turn into cats. Of course they don't think that, but it "appears" to Comfort that they do because of his complete misunderstanding of actual evolution.
The most basic fact about climate science is that weather is not climate. Anyone who mixes them up like that clearly knows zero climate science and has no interest in knowing any. We know that it's colder in Antarctica than in the Sahara, because of their different climates; we don't have to know anything about what their weather will be like next week to know that. Likewise, we know that it is generally hotter during the summer than the winter, without needing 100% accurate weather forecasts. Duh. Basic logic, which you completely fail at. And basic intellectual honesty, which you fail at even worse. But according to you, someone has to be gullible to think that we can expect summer to be warmer than winter, because weather forecasts aren't reliable. No, sorry, one has to be extremely gullible to swallow the absurd denier logic you're peddling.
Greenhouse gases slow the escape of heat from the planet's surface; with enough greenhouse gases, the net flow of energy into the earth's system is positive. That makes the globe slowly warm over time ... basic physics and logic. We don't need to know the fine details to understand this obvious point. Put a pot of water on a burner and the water will heat and eventually boil. The exact location of each bubble, which we cannot predict, is analogous to weather. The overall heating and eventual boiling of the water is analogous to climate. Understanding this is not being gullible, it's being intelligent, and intellectually honest. Climate science deniers completely fail at that, and so cannot be swayed by reason or facts.