Um, can you perhaps link back to where this evidence was linked? You've talked about overwhelming evidence but haven't really cited anything other than the IPCC summary for policymakers, which is itself pretty void of data. If global warming has been going on for centuries, it pretty much refutes the idea that CO2 emissions are the cause, since the climatologists conclude that they couldn't have played any major role in temperature variations until sometime after WW-II. So thanks! Well no, it's not happening now or it would be showing up in the entire set of data as warming, which it hasn't done since 1998. Since then it's just shown up as warm, withing out the "ing." Project much? You apparently don't even bother to look at the data, much less have the slightest clue that there a "rest of" it. And if you would be so kind as to point to the factually inaccurate statement I made. So far I've backed up most anything I've said with hard data from the CRU at the UEA, but am willing to back it up with hard data from the NCDC, NASA, Berkley Earth, or any other organization, and I've backed up my statements about the internal workings of the IPCC with links to interviews with IPCC lead authors, while backing up another comment with a link to an interview with the 10th most cited scientist who is still alive and publishing, and who happens to be a climatologist. And there's the problem. The warmists try to redefine science as a religion, ruling out any contradictory evidence, however sound and from whatever source, that questions their unscientifically absurd apocalyptic beliefs. This is something that many climatologists are unequivocal about denouncing, because science can't advance if anyone who deviates from the catechism put out by Earth First or Greenpeace is denounced as anti-science. That's how Nazi science worked, and that's how Lysenkoism worked. That's how all sorts of bizarre cults work. You're a charter member. You won't look at the science, you just propound at what you guess the science is, and do so without the slightest clue as to what the data shows, because you don't actually care about reality, you care about a wacko religious narrative about sin and pollution, one which probably involves the evil Koch brothers and BushCheneyHaliburton, along with something about polar bears and tree fairies. Science really isn't for people like you, who ignore data, don't pay attention to what's going on, don't follow the literature, don't dig into the various models and papers, yet argue from complete ignorance about what the science is actually showing, blissfully unaware of what positions and opinions the climatologists are actually putting forth. You have to read an analyze the actual papers. A few weeks ago I gave a pretty devastating critique of the flaws in the Neukom et al paper on that purported to be the first multi-proxy millennial Southern Hemisphere temperature study, which was none of that. It only had four proxies that gave good coverage for a thousand years, and it blended those with six other proxies, most of which were essentially random noise (showing no trend at all, ever, over a thousand years), and some of which were definitely not proxies for temperature, like a proxy for a local Antarctic ice sheet, which is definitely not a proxy for global temperature or we'd be screaming about the coming ice age, because the Antarctic ice extent is stubbornly backwards regarding the modern surface temperature record, and on top of that Antarctic ice extent shifts around, shrinking in one area as it expands in another. The Neukom paper's good proxies were from earlier studies in South America (Chile and Peru), and those cited studies found a big Medieval Warm Period. By mixing those good signals with lots of noise, and then statistically mixing the tiny number of good proxies with over a hundred proxies that didn't extend anywhere near as far back as a thousand years (most were post 1800 AD), Neukom was able to wish away the MWP in the Southern Hemisphere, despite having only evidence that strongly confirmed it, as stated explicitly in the papers he cited for his proxy data. Many top climatologists read my critique, due to where I was posting, so the new perspective on Neukom's paper is that it had some interesting insights about the disconnect between northern and southern hemisphere historical trends, but otherwise is deeply flawed.