Well those blog posts were written by Michael Mann and Stephan Rahmstorf, two rather prominent scientists and they do have citations to peer reviewed science. I don't have time to dig deeper now as I'm leaving in a few hours for a week of whitewater rafting.

There's not a lot of difference between the warming rate from 1950-1998 and 1950-2012 and choosing 1998 is cherry picking since it was an unusual year, more than 2 sigmas above the temperature trend. Since something like 93% of the warming goes into the oceans anyway it doesn't take much of a change in the rate of ocean heat absorption to have a large effect on atmospheric temperatures. But as long as there is an energy imbalance all of that heat is still accumulating and sooner or later it will have its effects.

Here are several posts at RealClimate on the subject of whether warming has paused or not:

http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

There are indications that the PDO is switching to a warm phase that generally favors El Ninos. If that happens temperatures may well move above climate model projections in a few years. It's all a part of the noise of natural variability. As I said before less than about 30 years is too short a time period to make judgements about the temperature trends.

I (and quite a few scientists) think the IPCC report made a mistake in talking about a hiatus. As shown statistically by Tamino it's a meaningless distinction at this point. Looking at the temperature trend only since 1998 is too short a period climatologically speaking as the standard climatological period is 30 years.

The only way climate models can account for natural variability is by using uncertainty ranges since by its nature natural variability isn't predictable ahead of time. The fact that temperatures are still within the uncertainty range of the climate models means it's impossible to say they're wrong.

That's true but one think about solar PV is that it's generally at its maximum production when the need for air conditioning is greatest so the fit pretty well together.

A more fundamental reason behind the reduction in timber cutting is that it was being done at an unsustainable rate. If it had kept it up we'd be left with practically nothing to cut now.

Ok, here's the IPCC third report published in 2001. You can compare the projections in it to current observations.

I'm not going to try again because I've already presented you with this peer reviewed paper that compares IPCC projections to observations for temperature and sea level rise. The fact that you won't accept the format I present it in just shows how you lack intellectual flexibility.

The science is what it is and you can't change that. But a pretty rigorous statistical analysis doesn't show any distinguishable slowdown in the warming trend.

It's amazing how so many people think one volcano under one lobe of an Antarctic glacier translates to volcanoes under ice all over the continent.

No the only Antarctic ice that is increasing some is the sea ice. Even with the increase in sea ice the continent as a whole is losing more ice than it's gaining and the rate of loss is accelerating. 300 km^3 is only talking about one small area in the southern Antarctic Peninsula.

The numbers have been crunched here. They show that the heat emitted by all human activities are about 1% of the heat from enhanced greenhouse warming so it's pretty much just at the rounding error level.

Antarctic is a big continent. The Antarctic Peninsula stretches out toward South America. The article specifically talks about the southern Antarctic Peninsula which is well north of the South Pole.

The GRACE satellites show that the Antarctic ice sheet is losing mass as a whole and the rate of loss is accelerating. So the ice loss is not being balanced by accumulation in the interior.

All you have to do to get the predictions made by scientists is to read the IPCC reports. Here's the latest one.

The article you cite also has this line:

So Dr. Maslowski's prediction was at odds with the IPCC report that presents the general consensus of the field so it isn't a good example of a prediction.