“When you look at all the data published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (not just the cherry-picked data that fits neatly into a political ideology), the long-term increase in global temperatures unmistakable.”
The author cherry picks, then complains about cherry picking by others. Why is a starting point at the year 1980 sacrosanct and “long term”, whereas another starting point would be “cherry picked” and “short term”? What are the uncertainties/inaccuracies in the NOAA data, and how do they compare to the “trend”? Given a trend, how do they know that it will continue and it’s manmade? Given that it will continue, and is manmade, that it’s undesirable? Given that it’s undesirable, that it can and should be improved by changes in our behavior?
If he were honest, he would acknowledge that those who disagree are skeptics, not “deniers”. He and his ilk are making assertions; they are the ones that have the burden of proof. Instead they engage in ad hominem arguments. Is that the best they can do?
But they do provide a link to another article where the graph is shown. If you look at bar graph, it is obvious.