I’m with you, buddy. I’m sure you guys on the left think that “we” on the right are doing just that. And, again, as is usually the case, “we” on the right think the exact same thing about so much of the current global warming movement (previously, the overpopulation movement, previous to that the ozone hole movement).

These sorts of things are always a quandry to answer because you have an exhaustive entry & if someone (well, me) were to go through it with detailed answers it’ll either end up resembling a “fisk” - which means to me “unreadable after the 113th paragraph” - or a concise retort covering the spots that I choose to highlight while leaving you to ask “wait, but what about _____ and ______, he didn’t even answer those! Does that mean he accepts what I stated as a given or was he lazy or was he unable to answer it’?” Not you, personally, but ‘you’ in the general sense.

That comment is posted now…

Using the first link, to the Australian, I would argue that it depends less on which resources one points at, but how hard you squint. Cherry picking short term data to create a certain appearance isn’t science - it’s persuasion (using the nicest word I could find for it). Yes, ‘98 still stands as the hottest year on record, reflecting some additional short-term effects most likely not caused by CO2. So, if ‘98 is your data point (as the commentator suggested in the article from the Australian), then all of the years since then were cooler than your data point. If you ignore the fact that all but two of the years after ‘98 were significantly warmer than ‘97 and the fact that all of the years after ‘98 were warmer than any year on record before ‘98 ‘97 [ed], then you can say something like “with ‘98 as your reference point, we are cooling.”

The commentator is sloppy in stating that 2002 marks a “plateau”, as 2003 & 2005 were both warmer than 2002. If you smooth the curve, you can see a small “plateau” around 2005, but you have to virtually blend it out of existence to get a plateau that includes 2002.

I saw the NPR article about ocean temperature showing the oceans are not heating up at the same rate as the surface temperature is rising, and that - since 2003 - there has been slight but insignificant cooling in the oceans. That could mean a lot of things, but it doesn’t mean that the earth’s temperature is dropping, even over extremely short term since 2003.

So, anyway - it isn’t what resources you look at as much as how well you collect and analyze data.

All because the earth’s temperature (which is STILL DROPPING)

The earth’s temperature - over any time scale greater than ~3 years - is not dropping. It is rising significantly.

Climactic Research Unit

I believe we’re now at 8 1/2 years and counting until NYC is going to be underwater, IIRC. All because the earth’s temperature (which is STILL DROPPING) is going to do a ‘magic bullet’ and rise.

It’s a consensus/fact.

[preview still no worky]