Because I'm sure your a scientifically literate individual who has read all the recent papers out.

Voice: This July became the 36 consecutive July, and 329 consecutive month, with a global temperature above the 20th century average.

So much for your theory that temperatures have leveled off over the past decade.

@Voice,

Okay, if temperatures have "leveled off" as you say, then why have the past six years of record low sea level ice occurred during the past six summers?

By the way, who told you that temperatures have "leveled off"? Can you provide the source of your information. Was it from a peer-reviewed scientific journal, or from someone on one of the 24/7 news channels?

Funny how so many deniers believe that myth.

The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE was founded and named in 1988. That's twenty four years ago. The term "climate change" is hardly new. Scientists have been using the terms climate change and global warming interchangably since the mid 70s.

It would probably help to think of global warming as the disease and climate change as the symptoms.

Dude, learn how to put your remarks inside the comment your responding to. Golfs is not going to see your orphaned retort on a separate page, and no one else is going to read back to try to figure out what the hell you're referring to.

See, I told you that you don't understand science.

Yes and it is the component that is blocked by the ozone layer.

HA Amen....

Nasa confirms, as well as other science, that the sun, Earth, and all our planets in our solar system are currently lining up.

That would be shocking, if true. It isn't.

Jupiter and Saturn, the two largest planets (and together about 1800 times larger than the Earth, so they are "the big boys" as far as planetary alignment) are about as far apart as them can be.

Uranus & Neptune, each about 60 times larger than the Earth, are ~90 degrees away from Jupiter & Saturn.

No only is your statement really, completely, and utterly without merit, it is incredibly easy to confirm, so - why spout such worthless statements?

And if you can't get something as concrete and factual as "where is Jupiter now?" right, it rather calls into question the rest of your post. (Previous sentence re-written a few times to be polite and stay within the Newsvine CoH.)

They expect higher gamma rays to explode thru our atomosphere [sic] during this time from our Sun...

Nope. Gamma rays can't get through our atmosphere. That's why we've built space-based telescopes to study gamma - we can't see them here on the ground worth a hill of beans. Until the Sun reaches old age and cooks off our atmosphere a bazillion years from now nothing is going to change that fact.

Does no one read about anything anymore?

I recommend getting your facts science papers, and sensible science journalism, and not comic books about "planetary alignments" and "gamma rays exploding thru our atmosphere".

May want to take the time and educate yourself...

Great advice jinxie. I recommend being more choosy about what sources you consider credible.

@Michael:

No only is your statement really, completely, and utterly without merit, it is incredibly easy to confirm, so - why spout such worthless statements?

Because some people like to display their (redacted due to several CoH violations)* and like to think that they are important.

Really Jinxie, 5-10 minutes on google would have prevented you from looking far far worse than just foolish.**

Mitchell

*(it's sad that the CoH actually prevents me from answering this question honestly)

**had to clean that sentence up a couple of times....*sigh*

How convenient it must be to dismiss the conclusions of thousands of climate scientists, acting 99% in concert, so that you can sleep better at night.

You sound like a child. Grow up and learn to take some responsibility for this place like the rest of us.

How convenient it must be to dismiss the conclusions of thousands of climate scientists, acting 99% in concert

Athiest, it's 97%, not 99% - please don't exaggerate. ;-) /sarc

"Gore started this stuff"

How do people come to believe such nonsense?

Al Gore took an interest in global warming, because he happened to have a pioneering and well known climate scientist named Keeling, as a professor in college.

Just so you know how absurd your comment is.

The greenhouse effect has been understood for over a century.

the greenhouse gas effect was first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, proven by John Tyndall in 1858, and was first quantified by Svante Arrhenius ~1896.

Fourier calculates colder earth without an atmosphere (1824)

Tyndall discovers relationship between CO2 and long-wave radiation (1859)

Arrhenius calculates global warming from anthropogenic CO2 (1896)

Chamberlin models global carbon exchange including feedbacks (1897)

Callendar predicts global warming increase catalysed by CO2 emissions (1938)

Revelle predicts inability of oceans to sequester anthropogenic CO2 (1958)

from "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart

Arrhnenius' estimate, for how much warming to expect from a doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, was very close to today's estimates, which have 100 more years of research to rely on.

Arrhnenius was researching whether human emissions of greenhouse gases could warm the world.
- Over 100 years ago!

But for Rush Limbaugh, the Republicans congress and tea party, Global Warming is just an agenda cooked up by Al Gore and other liberals.

Voice of Unreason

Your comment is the standard 'Gish Gallop' of denier talking points, which are all either false or misleading.

The "Medieval Warming Period" was NOT Global. It was only in areas near the north Atlantic.

And within that area, differences of as much as 200 years separates the highest temps between say, England and Greenland, for example.

The causes of the Little Ice Age were more than usual volcanic activity and weaker than usual solar activity. The aerosols emitted by volanoes cool the atmosphere.

And it was NOT Global either.

What was the population of the earth during Roman times?

Your silly remark about SUVs only proves the point. There are now 7 billion people burning fossil fuesl and emitting 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. That is ON TOP OF the normal amount of CO2 that normally moves through the natural short term carbon cycle.

My bet is that you don't even know what the carbon cycle is.

Starman,

The only people getting richer are the Big Oil and Big Coal companies whose business model is reliant 100% on convincing the rest of us that burning their products does no harm.

Who is getting rich on global warming?

its not the little people,its the corporations that poison the planet.the bp spill in the gulf could have been stopped much sooner if they had a safety cap installed for just such an accident.or the gas fracking going on all over.and on and on.thats where you should start.the most disasters come from "business".

R Battle,

I know it does, but it requires an educated population that demands a change in energy policy. If this can happen, business will follow.

I am tired of burning oil, I am tired that 99% of our vehicles are created to burn it. I am tired of trillions of dollars being spent fighting over it, and billions and billions being spent to clean up after it.

Some people think that $4 for a gallon of gas is too expensive. Imagine if Big Oil had to absorb the actual costs of producing their product and fold that into the sales price?

We already pay $12 a gallon for gas, we just pay for it in other ways, like national debt incurred to fight wars over it.

Apparently, they do.

And what I find especially perplexing is how deniers are somehow able to take stock in "science" when a for-profit Oil company hires a team of scientists that conclude that "global cooling" is right around the corner.

It is sad to see so many people buy the anti-climate change message that Big Energy has told us for the past 35 years.

If you follow the money, it always leads to Big Oil and Big Coal.

Big Oil controls our foreign policy, our lives, our science, our economy, our food, and just about everything else.

Don't let it control your mind also...

do you really believe that putting millions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere has no affect?

Of course not. My trees are growing faster then ever!

Mr Steady

Skeptic Argument:
CO2 is plant food, so global warming will be good

Answer:
FALSE (actually somewhat true, but totally misleading as an argument against stopping global warming)

Plants take in CO2 through pores called "stomata"
When it gets too hot, these stomata close up.

Natural vegetation and agriculture would be threatened by increasing floods, heat waves, droughts, changes in when spring and autumn happen, sea water incursion from rising sea levels, possible changes in pests like insects, fungus, etc.

(a large percentage of agriculture is close to the sea or estuaries effected by tidal range.)

More CO2 might help some plants in some areas, but the overall effect from the other changes will swamp any help from CO2, in general.

Another problem with the CO2 is plant food nonsense

CO2 is seldom the determing factor of whether plants are healthy. There isn't a shortage of CO2.

(comment here by Keith Harwood | May 4, 2010 9:13 PM)
"I am puzzled by this `CO2 is plant food' bit. Many, many years ago, as I recall in primary school, I learned that plant growth has one limiting factor. In most of the world the limit is water. In mid-high latitudes it's sunlight. In really high latitudes it's water again (for plants frozen water is the same as no water). In tropical rain-forests the limit is trace nutrients; there's practically none in the soil, it's all in the biomass and leaf litter. The thing was that CO2 was never the limiting factor so more CO2 won't give more plant life. Has this changed in the last fifty years?"

It doesn't really matter if it is actually a record low at the moment or not. The trend is clear.

So you can't intelligently argue the point so decide the other side is stupid. Typical neo-con logic/

No, Rege, that is not what needs to happen.

We need to burn less coal and oil, more natural gas, and consume less beef, and purchase food that was produced closer to where we live.

Things like that.

BTW: Did you hear that the U.S. carbon emissions dropped to 1992 levels? Why? Because we are burning less coal, and more natural gas.

Wind, Solar, and Natural Gas for electricity.

Natural Gas for our vehicles.

Corn for food.

And Coal for bad children's XMas stockings.

:)

Rege, no one claims we can "control" the climate --only that we can control our effect on it.

Rege

Absolute nonsense. Moving to clean energy will be an economic plus. Energy efficiency is an economic plus.

The costs are vastly lower than the cost of not acting. How much is the continuation of civilization worth?

--------

Northeast Cap and Trade System Boosts Economic Growth
April 18, 2012

NYTimes:

"A study by the Boston consulting firm Analysis Group that was commissioned by four nonprofit foundations last year noted that states participating in the program had received $912 million over three years by charging electricity providers for their carbon dioxide emissions. Many of the states invested most of those funds in programs to retrofit homes and buildings to make them more energy-efficient, lowering consumption of electricity.

So while the program led to a slight rise in electricity rates – less than 1 percent — consumers in those states ended up seeing lower bills over all as their demand declined.

“All told,” the study said,” electricity consumers over all – households, businesses, government users and others – enjoy a net gain of nearly $1.1 billion as their overall electric bills drop over time. This reflects average savings of $25 for residential consumers, $181 for commercial consumers and $2,493 for industrial consumers over the study period.”

{read at Climate Crocks}

--------

Cap and Trade Gives Massachusetts Economy Critical Boost, Defying Naysayers

"New report on a ten-state initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions shows the program is a success after three years......According to a recent study, cap and trade has created 3,800 jobs and nearly $500 million in economic activity for Massachusetts since 2008. ....of the 10 participating Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, Massachusetts benefited most economically, because it used the bulk of its money to help fund its aggressive energy efficiency agenda.

........Regionally, $912 million in total auction proceeds spurred $1.6 billion in economic value and created 16,000 jobs, the report found.
"Energy efficiency investments have a much bigger multiplier effect than any other category of spending," - RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

All the RGGI states saw a net economic benefit from the program"

{read at Inside Climate News}

Cap and Trade was a conservative idea, a market based solution. And guess what? It has been used successfuly to reduce CFCs that damage the ozone layer. and it was used successfully to reduce the sulpher oxides that cause acid rain and smog.

And if you put several million Pepsis in to the Mississippi would that be a substantial contribution?

No scientist is claiming that we are "killing the planet." But the science is clear that we are changing it.

Voice

I suggest you go to YouTube, and watch the movie called "Home"

- 90minutes of well done movie, with nice cinematography also.

Then come tell us how little ole humans cannot impact the planet and climate in a meaningful way.

Humans have a HUGE impact on the planet, at least on human time scales. In geological time scales of tens and hundreds of millions of years, not so much. But we are concerned with our future in the next few centuries and beyond.

Paul,

The Bible teaches us to be good stewards of our planet.

How is this a "commie" agenda again?

Conservationism is not "Green Environmentalism" which is a political movement. You do not see it because you are part of the problem. The UN includes "doing away with poverty and wealth transfer as part of the "Green Agenda. Private property is the bedrock of liberty and freedom. That is what this movement destroys. You may want an all powerful government. Real American Patriots do not. Leave us alone. It is also ironic how Greens love the Bible or anything when it fits their perverted needs.

Another member of the Agenda 21 conpiracy theory mania. which is entirely absurd.

"wealth transfer"

I think what you are referring to is the twisted misrepresentation of a simple fact, that is considered when the world's governments get together to talk about reducing emissions.

And here is that fact.

The vast majority of the excess CO2 from human emissions that is now resident in the atmosphere, was put there by western industrialized countries during the industrial revolution. Other countries are just starting to industrialize.
And those undeveloped countries will more often than not, suffer the most from global warming.

Japan, I suppose, would be grouped with the western industrials.

China

Much of their pollution and CO2 emisions come from making products that you probably buy at WallMart.

They have a right to develop their country and have a modern standard of living.

Yes they are burning a lot of coal. But their CO2 emissions, which just surpassed ours a few years ago, is still only 1/4 of ours, on a per capita basis.
They have 4 times as many people.

They recognize climate change as a threat and have made more commitment to developing renewable energy than the U.S. has.

They have been rapidly tearing down old dirty coal plants and replacing them with the latest design, which are cleaner.

-----------------------------

The Chinese government will spend $450 billion supporting renewables in China, over the next five years and $750 billion by 2020.

they have set a goal of 15% renewables by 2020

their new goal for wind power is 1,000 GW by 2050 and 150 GW by 2020

They have set a goal of 50 GW of solar by 2020

There is a city in China where over 800,000 people are employed in solar energy

There are 120 million installed solar water heaters in China.

(1,000 GW of wind power is equivalent to about 300 nuclear reactors, using 30% capacity factor for wind, for it's intermittancy, and a rough estimate.
Nuclear plants are about 85% capacity factor. The average nuclear plant is 1 GW, though some are twin reactors)

-------------------

Undeveloped countries don't have the encumbent vested interest in old power infrastructure - power grids etc. They can industrialize using cleaner energy and newer technology from the start. localized solar energy for example

"The Beef Industry is responsible for 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions (believe it or not)."

Please explain how that is.

Golf,

The beef (cattle) industry creates massive amounts of methane gas. This is one of the worst greenhouse gasses out there. This industry produces around 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions, where vehicles (cars, trucks, etc.) produce about 18%.

Google it...I was surprised.

I googled it and here is what I found: "Studies reveal that the amount of methane in the atmosphere has gone up from 700 parts per billion in 1750 to 1745 parts per billion in 1998, which constitutes 4 to 9 percent of greenhouse gases."

4 to 9 percent of greenhouse gases.....

Oh and BTW, beef (cattle) industry is not the only source of methane gas.

Here is a Time article if you like.

www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1839995,00.html

From that article:

"In a 2006 report, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions — by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions"

You need to read further in the story..."Much of livestock's contribution to global warming come from deforestation.." not from methane gases.

There are many factors that contribute. I don't see any point in arguing over which of our pet peeves is "the worst."

golf,

Yes, I did read that part.

The combined effects of the beef industry is what is important though right?

Another coincidental statistic. There are also more trees in the US than ever. PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals.

Athiest

I think that is an exaggeration, though it is a big problem.

the total percent of human emissions from land use, is 20% of human emissions. I'm pretty sure, that what you are talking about is included in this category.

land use being deforestation, unsustainable farming practices, encroachment on wild habitats, etc.

Not really following you Voice...

Please explain the connection...

Oh...and please provide the source that has you believing that "global temps have leveled off".

Thanks! :)

Charles,

That is a valid point. Our utter dependance on oil is our Achilles heal.

Dealing with this issue has benefits for many fronts.

Thank you for your comment.

It is diificult to put a perrcentage on how many scientists agree with something, because we would first have to decide which ones are legitimate experts and what exactly they are agreeing with. But anyone who follows the science with an open mind knows that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic global warming is a significant phenomenon. That is just obvious.

Three different polls of peer review published climate scientists, one by the National Academy of Science, found that 97-98% agree on AGW.

What matters most, is what those with the most expertise and experience in the science think.

Science isn't a popular poll, as many seem to think.

++++++++++¬+++#######
++++++++++¬+#########¬###
++++++++++¬##########¬#####
+++++++++#¬####++++++¬++###
++++++++##¬#+++++++++¬+++###
++++++++##¬++++++++++¬++++###
+++++++##+¬++++++++++¬++++####
+++++++#++¬++++++++++¬+++++###
++++++##++¬++++++++++¬+++++####
++++++#+++¬++++++++++¬++##++###
+++++##+++¬+++++++++#¬##########¬#
+++++##+++¬+++++#+++#¬#+####+###¬#
+++++##+++¬+#####+++#¬++#####+##¬##
+++++##+++¬##+###+++#¬+++****++#¬###
+++++##+++¬++#++#+++#¬++++++++++¬##
+++++##+++¬++++++++++¬#+++++++##¬+#
+++++#++++¬++++++++++¬+#++++++##¬+#
++++++#+++¬++++++++++¬#++++++###¬#
++++++##++¬+++++++++#¬###++++###¬#
++++++++++¬++++++##+#¬##++++++##¬##
+++++##+#+¬++++++++++¬++++++++##¬+#
+++++#++++¬++++++++++¬##++++++##¬##
+++++#++++¬++++++++##¬####++++##
+++++#+#+#¬+++++++##+¬++#+++++##
++++++#++#¬++++++##++¬+###++++##
+++++++#++¬++++++++++¬++++++####¬#
+++++++++#¬++++++++++¬+#++++####¬#
++++++++++¬+#++++++++¬+++++#####¬###
++++++++++¬++#+++++++¬++++######¬###
++++++++++¬+++#++++++¬++########¬###
++++++++++¬++++##++++¬########+#¬###
++++++++++¬+++#++####¬#######++#¬###

I agree, yes we can.

Ignorance at its finest.

What is amazing is conservatives can deny global warming is a fact, and as a matter of fact will side with big oil and big coal simply to enhance their profit. Doing nothing is never the right thing to do.

++++++++++¬+++#######
++++++++++¬+#########¬###
++++++++++¬##########¬#####
+++++++++#¬####++++++¬++###
++++++++##¬#+++++++++¬+++###
++++++++##¬++++++++++¬++++###
+++++++##+¬++++++++++¬++++####
+++++++#++¬++++++++++¬+++++###
++++++##++¬++++++++++¬+++++####
++++++#+++¬++++++++++¬++##++###
+++++##+++¬+++++++++#¬##########¬#
+++++##+++¬+++++#+++#¬#+####+###¬#
+++++##+++¬+#####+++#¬++#####+##¬##
+++++##+++¬##+###+++#¬+++****++#¬###
+++++##+++¬++#++#+++#¬++++++++++¬##
+++++##+++¬++++++++++¬#+++++++##¬+#
+++++#++++¬++++++++++¬+#++++++##¬+#
++++++#+++¬++++++++++¬#++++++###¬#
++++++##++¬+++++++++#¬###++++###¬#
++++++++++¬++++++##+#¬##++++++##¬##
+++++##+#+¬++++++++++¬++++++++##¬+#
+++++#++++¬++++++++++¬##++++++##¬##
+++++#++++¬++++++++##¬####++++##
+++++#+#+#¬+++++++##+¬++#+++++##
++++++#++#¬++++++##++¬+###++++##
+++++++#++¬++++++++++¬++++++####¬#
+++++++++#¬++++++++++¬+#++++####¬#
++++++++++¬+#++++++++¬+++++#####¬###
++++++++++¬++#+++++++¬++++######¬###
++++++++++¬+++#++++++¬++########¬###
++++++++++¬++++##++++¬########+#¬###
++++++++++¬+++#++####¬#######++#¬###

The thing is that the science is quite clear that we are affecting the climate. By "we" I mean humans. We can point fingers at each other, or we can do something, but that is a matter of moral responsibility, not science.

Jock,

It is a matter of moral responsibility for sure, but before we get there one must understand the science.

This is why Big Oil works so hard to convince us that the science is wrong. They don't want too many people to get to the point of moral responsibility.

Tea Party forever. We are now in power. We destroyed his term. We will repeal it all next year. Bankrupt the government. We will persevere.

What you've done is turn the GOP into the most extremist major U.S. party in living memory.

If anyone is old enough to remember Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, 1960s lefty activists, you might understand that in order to find an equivalent extemism on the left, as we now have on the right;

you would have to go back to the 1960s, but imagine 100 Abbie Hoffmans and Jerry Rubins in Congress, and several running for president.

I wonder how many won't get that you are being sarcastic

Your logic contradicts itself. Yes, 1998 was one of the hottest years on record - way above the trend lines. Therefore, to use it as a baseline for long-term averages is obviously dishonest. Climate change is, by definition, a long-tern trend. Claiming it has "levelled off" for 7 or even 14 years is meaningless. The fact that we are still at least as warm as the warmest year on record just shows that global warming has defintitely not abated.

@Voice,

What jock said.

What about years 2006 to 2012? According to this msnbc article, these past six years have seen the least amount of polar ice on record.

I find it interesting that I can't get any of the data file from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"Bob Carter's current research on climate change, sea-level change and
stratigraphy is based on field studies of Cenozoic sediments (last 65 million
years) from the Southwest Pacific region, especially the Great Barrier Reef and
New Zealand, and includes the analysis of marine sediment cores collected during
ODP Leg 181."

Last 65 million years????????

Voice of Reason

Carter is NOT a reliable source, unless you are looking for nonsense misinformation. He has NEVER been right.

Actually 1998 was not the warmest year on record. 2010 was, with 2005 second and 1998 third,

Bombshell: After Fixing Errors, UK Met Office Says 2010, 2005 Hottest Years on Record, World Warming Faster Than Thought

Reuters: Setback for the ‘stalled’ global warming view advanced by ‘skeptics’

"The UK Met Office said two years ago it had underestimated recent warming. The key reason is their Hadley/CRU (Climatic Research Unit) Temperature dataset (HadCRUT) undersampled the Arctic — the place on earth warming up the fastest.

Now the Met[eorological] Office (part of the Defence Ministry) has corrected their errors and update their temperature record (release here, video below). No longer is 1998 the hottest year on record. It has been (slightly) edged out by 2010 and 2005. As the UK Telegraph reports:

Between 1998 and 2010, temperatures rose by 0.11C, 0.04C more than previously estimated.

The new data set also shifts around the hottest years on record, so that the new temperature series, known as HadCRUT4, is more in line with other global records held by NASA and NOAA in the US. The American series had already added Arctic temperatures from extrapolated information."

{at Climate Progress}

It's not news anyone who follows the science, that the HadCRUT global temperature data set always showed less warming than any of the other data sets.
And that it lacked coverage of the Arctic

Voice of Reason is ignoring the 90% of excess heat from the enhanced greenhouse efffect, that is going into the oceans.

Every year starting with 2001 and through 2011 was warmer than any year in the records, previous to 1998.

10 of the warmest years on record were in the last 12 years

13 of the warmest years on record were in the last 15 years

The last decade, despite being dominated by the cooling effect of La Nina and the last three years of which were during a 100 year solar minimum, was still the warmest decade in the records

You can't compare the temp from one year, which was an anomaly, party due to having the largest El Nino in a century, with a whole decade of record warm years, and claim it hasn't warmed.

Oh yeah, and through July 2012, we had the warmest 13 months on record.

Records of global warming are probably only accurate for about the last 75 years at best. I am sure this is just a cycle, which about half of the scientist agree.

This is all about creating a great investment opportunities for the powers that be. Same old story, just a different title.

Siegfried Fred Singer is a minority voice among climate scientists.

His relationships with ExxonMobile (Singer's group, the George C. Marshall Institute, and ExxonMobil, met in 1995 and proposed a $5-million campaign to convince the public that the science of global warming was controversial and uncertain) have discredited Singer's research among members of the scientific community, according to Scheuering. Congresswoman Lynn Rivers questioned Singer's credibility during a congressional hearing in 1995, saying he had not been able to publish anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal for the previous 15 years, except for one technical comment.

Some refer to Siegfried Fred Singer as "A denier for hire".

Bob, we have pretty good indications of climate going back a very long time.

And it is an absolute lie to claim that "about half of the scientists" agree this is "just a cycle."

Bob,

You say "I am sure this is just a cycle..."

What makes you believe this? Who told you this? Where did you get this information?

Take a moment and ask yourself the source of your beliefs and then write them back to us.

Thanks :)

Singer was a shill for the tobacco industry and now he is a shill for the oil industry. It's his job.

Voice, there are virtually no published scientific papers that reject the general consensus on climate change. Of course most papers don't address it directly, because they are discussing only a narrow aspect of the overall picture.

Energy and Environment is NOT a respected science journal. It has no credibility among scientists.

Fred Singer has been a shill scientist and so called expert, and always for corporate interests point of view, on issues from acid rain to asbestos, CFCs that damage the protective ozone layer, tobacco dangers and global warming. He was once a good scientist. Now just a joke.

Singer does Not have evidence of a 1500 year cycle, - complete nonsense

There is overwhelming consensus.

The 2007 IPCC report was based on over 10,000 papers and there are thousands more now

Not just 528