However, the point of this particular post was to criticize deniers for their seeming lack of intellectual curiosity to do a little research from reputable sources in order to get at least a minimum of understanding about the issue. The point wasn’t to load the reader up with evidential talking points, raw data, and technical analysis of climate science. There are entire organizations devoted to that. I’m not going to do it on my little blog for an opinion piece.

As for the data you’ve cited in the past, I’ve read almost every one of the links you’ve posted and almost without exception (I say “almost” because I can’t remember every single one), they misquoted, misrepresented, or misunderstood the data and/or situation they were criticizing. In each case, it wasn’t difficult to find the actual information. In many cases, the links you posted actually supported AGW… a bit of irony which I found somewhat amusing.

You mention tree ring data, Antarctic sea ice, and global weather stations. I’ve read a bit about each of those items, but I’m not sure of your point. Surely you can’t be presenting any of them as evidence against global warming. You’ve said before that your anti-global-warming motivations are political, but I’m sure that doesn’t preclude doing some valid research instead of following along with some anti-science, right-wing talking points.

Assuming you’ve done the research, you probably already know about how tree ring data is and was used ( http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/ ), how warming temperatures are expected to affect Antarctic sea ice ( http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI4136.1 ), and how global weather stations are used ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/the-guardian-disappoints/ and http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html ).

Now, I suspect you will claim that my sources are suspect or lack credibility or are somehow involved in perpetrating a hoax, but these are just a few of the articles that turn up. The CRU, the IPCC, the IASC, the USGCRP, the RMetS, and a host of others all have information… actual scientific information… supporting the idea that AGW is happening.

Settled science? No. Science doesn’t settle. The only people who use the phrase “settled science” on a regular basis seem to be the deniers. You know full well that hypotheses change to fit the data… but the data has to be real. There are plenty of genuine scientific debates going on, but they’re based on the actual facts, not on political spin. The political debates are just a bunch of ideological mud-slinging.

So am I ideological about this issue? No… unless you want to define ideology as a strong acceptance of reality.