Forward projections of solar variability are fraught with deep uncertainties, as exemplified by the last solar minimum. Satellite observations show this to be the weakest solar cycle in over a century (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/the-weakest-solar-cycle-in-100-years/)..

The one thing we are nearly certain of is that the years ahead will see increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere due to increasing emissions if nothing is done to reverse course. We know carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere.

The causes of historic global warming are not uncertain at all. We have a clear understanding that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to increased greenhouse gas concentrations. As each decade passes, this conclusion becomes increasingly confident.

This is demonstrably false. The history of temperature variations over the past 150 years can be explained by the dual effects of natural and man-made climate forcing changes. Earlier in the record, volcanic and solar forcing is evident whereas in the last 50 to 60 years, the rise in global temperatures can only be explained by rising greenhouse gas concentrations.

This is demonstrably false. It can be shown by a high schooler that solar variability cannot account for the global warming trend – full stop.

This is actually true – there is no evidence to support this. however it is true that Arctic permafrost is melting, and it is true that vast reservoirs of methane exist in the soils where they to melt.

This is demonstrably false, Everything about the statement is incorrect.

The link between warming and drought is strong, and evident to anyone who lives in drought affected regions such as the American West, Eastern Mediterranean, and North East Africa.

This is untrue. The best available data show that the rate of sea level rise has more than doubled in just the last decade (Hay et al., 2015)

the Arctic is a canary in the coal mine, and the rapid changes they are reflect the telltale polar amplification signature of increased greenhouse gas forcing. The rates of Arctic sea ice retreat are unprecedented compared to earlier decades and this is one of the fastest moving systems on the planet. Both polar ice caps are losing mass as shown by GRACE satellite data.

There exists a great deal of evidence to suggest that a future warming up 2°C would cause great damage to the human built environment, agriculture, and ocean ecosystems. The last time the earth warmed 2 to 3°C was the Pliocene, when sea level was 25 meters higher than today. 2°C warming also means that there will be far greater frequency of record heat which is known to damage commodity crop yields. Even if climate change is taken off the table, the increase in CO2 means that the ocean become much more greatly acidified, affecting ocean productivity and ecosystems that provide us with 20% of our dietary protein.

This is untrue. Solar forcing in the visible spectrum is far too small to explain recent warming. Furthermore solar variability would suggest a cooling trend more recently whereas the earth is clearly warmed.

This is demonstrably false and this is an old and falsified canard (Marcoitt et al., 2013)

This is demonstrably false. Again cherry picking individual years or specific time windows to explain a bigger phenomenon is pointless.

This is a falsely constructed argument by limiting the time range to 1979 to 2000. One can cherry pick an interval and show that it's not especially different from the past, however if one takes the full reliable record of the last 140 years the warming is unequivocal.

All - in my opinion, this OpEd is just another 'whack-a-mole' piece designed to confuse the public and consume our time with debunking and setting the record straight. I think a more productive way forward is to focus on how climate is changing things that really matter to people, food, water, shelter, energy and address this. These are much more personal/existential than global-scale temperature trends. Each has a similar dataset to speak to the human sustainability impact and riusk.

It's worth mentioning in here that The Berkeley temperature product also records comparable warming wrt NOAA/NASA/European products. The Berkeley team distinguish themselves as being 'indepedently funded' and thus unbiased, yet they have the same result. Modest funding from Koch and others who have been active supporters of skeptic groups. http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015-Hottest-Year-BE-Press-Release-v1.0.pdf

This is a rhetorical trick too - there are not 60 valid explanations for this. There has been valid debate about the reality of the hiatus as a climatic trend, as opposed to noise superimposed on a trend.

Also untrue: see Hansen et al 2016... El Nino added warmth but this would still be record warmth without it., as noted by others here.

Pants-on-fire, not true. See page 3 here.

https://www.munichre.com/site/mram/get/documents_E1449378742/mram/assetpool.mr_america/PDFs/3_Publications/ks_severe_weather_na_exec_summary.pdf

It's is actually false, interesting that he brought this up. I consulted my reinsurance contacts and have several links that indicate the opposite view, that they are very concerned about mounting climate-related losses.

Renaissance Re 2015 SEC document: "We believe, and believe the consensus view of current scientific studies substantiates, that changes in climate conditions, primarily global temperatures and expected sea levels are likely to increase the severity, and possibly the frequency, of weather related natural disasters and catastrophes relative to the historical experience over the past 100 years. Coupled with currently projected demographic trends in catastrophe-exposed regions, we currently estimate that this expected increase in severe weather, such as tropical cyclone intensity, over coming periods will increase the average economic value of expected losses, increase the number of people exposed per year to natural disasters and in general exacerbate disaster risk, including risks to infrastructure, global supply chains and agricultural production." http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/913144/000162828015000861/rnr201410-k.htm

also this: "No climate-change deniers to be found in the reinsurance business": "In Munich Re’s offices, there wasn’t much debate as the claims cheques flew out the door: The higher frequency of extreme weather events is influenced by climate change; and recent climate change is largely due to burning hydrocarbons. “I’m quite convinced that most climate change is caused by human activity,” says Peter Höppe, head of geo-risks research at Munich Re."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/an-industry-that-has-woken-up-to-climate-change-no-deniers-at-global-resinsurance-giant/article15635331/?page=all

lastly this: https://www.munichre.com/site/mram/get/documents_E1449378742/mram/assetpool.mr_america/PDFs/3_Publications/ks_severe_weather_na_exec_summary.pdf