From the sound of things you should probably wait until 2050 for those "I told you so"s. The article notes some (probably most if not all reputable ones) researchers factor both cosmic rays AND oceanic temperature cycles (in addition to many other things) into their projections. Viewed from the perspective of oceanic cycles the question becomes not "is it hotter than last year?" but "it this cycle hotter than the last one. " In other words, if we accept what you're representing as a lethal argument, it simply means we should compare temperatures NOW to those in the late '40s and early '50s rather than to the late '90s. We can be in a local cooling cycle and still be be warming over all.

Not that that will make any difference to those convinced there's no such thing as long term global warming, anymore than research looking at cosmic rays but still concluding the planet is warming. Even when the research looks at the evidence they consider all important, if it doesn't match their preconceived conclusions it can't be evaluating the evidence correctly.

The thing is, reduced consumption, increased efficiency and renewable energy are all valuable goals in themselves whether or not the planet is warming. They just become that much MORE valuable if it is, but when people insist that it's not and we should therefore dismiss suggestions we reduce consumption, increase efficiency and seek clean renewable energy, it raises the question of what agenda of theirs makes those things so objectionable irrespective of global temperatures.

If you can repost, so can I. With that out of the way:

I'm really sick of all the skeptic sneers at the term "climate change. " If you don't like the term anymore than I do, go bust Frank Luntzs chops, because his was the Republican focus group that came up with it as a way to convince people global warming either isn't happening or was perfectly fine if it is occurring. Or, put another way, "climate change" is the result of the same kind of "the data conflicts with our indulgence so we're going to fish for ways to dismiss it" thinking displayed in the article. The irony is that "climate change" may be Luntzs most successful spin doctoring, but even HE'S on board with global warming now. What does that tell you about the accuracy of the vast majority of the science and its forecasts...?

If skeptics don't like the term "climate change" they should go ask the skeptic who created it why he did so. I believe you'll find it was because it's no longer possible to deny global warming is occurring and is increasingly difficult to deny it's a net negative, so the next step is to deny man plays a large role. Once the science and the catastrophes make that impossible, I imagine the next step will be "*shrug* Well, it's too late to stop it now, so we might as well enjoy life while we can; oh, WHY didn't we know sooner...?!!!" *vomits* While you're asking Luntz why he came up with the term "climate change" why don't you ask him why, despite gobs of money, he's no longer a skeptic (on this issue; he's still very much a Republican spin doctor. )