Well, you are welcome to think what you like, of course, but anyone who is still on the hockey stick thing is about 10 years behind the times. To me, that is but one reason why the article posted is terminally weak.
Number one; it is not a peer reviewed science paper. It is not even written by a scientist.
Number two; it's making a 10-year-old argument. How about going against the MODERN version of things?
Perhaps because they are unable?
The fact is, 10 year old data is such that it favors the stated science. That's because the predictions that were made, back then, turn out to have been rather conservative in nature.
Similar to the arguments against evolution; there is no argument in scientific circles THAT IT HAPPENED. But there are rather RABID arguments on the whys and hows. People often confuse the two completely different arguments.
Pretty much the same deal here in scientific circles. Not WHETHER it is occuring, but why and how much?
EDIT: Here is just one example of what I mean. I've often heard the argument by non-scientists that data is skewed and cannot be what it seems BECAUSE Arctic ice and Antarctic ice are behaving differently, so how can we make any declarations, and so on.
If only such an argument had been run by your average scientist before wide dispersal.
Not only is that normal, but expected.