Yes, it is often hard to get reliable information on the Internet.

This is what Motl says about 'cooling':

'Cook says that the previous history of the climate shows that the climate is sensitive to imbalances. Indeed, it is and it has always been. And he says that the past history provides evidence for sensitivity to CO2. Well, it virtually doesn't. CO2, much like other effects, adds imbalances and pushes the temperature around. But there exists no way to disentangle CO2 from many other effects or argue that it has become the most important driver. So the climate continues to change in the same way as it did in the past, by the typical changes per year, decade, and century, and Cook has offered no evidence whatsoever that something has changed about the very fact that the climate is changing.'

Is there something in that summary that you can see is obviously wrong? If I read the SkS entry it makes assertions that I can't find support for in the literature. For example, there is a reference to 'rapid climate change', and a statement that things are happening more rapidly than in the past. What is the support for such a claim? If you follow the link you find that a (probable) extinction was (probably) caused by an example of rapid climate change that occurred 'in a geological instant (less than 3 million years...'

Whee! I think that SkS is dishonest in the way that it argues, and its title is similarly dishonest. If I can suggest it gently, it would help if you read more widely. Try Judith Curry, Climate Audit and Jo Nova. They are all very good at science, and in my judgment, never dishonest.

Don, a parable. You walk into a surgery to consult a new family Doctor. You sit down. The Dr says: "your left kidney is failing. I can arrange a dialysis session for you this afternoon". How do you respond? You might say "don't you need to give me a general medical check first, and read these records from my old Doctor?" Can the Doctor do anything to you without evidence of its need? You might say "yes". I would say "no".

Research science is all about Proposition, Evidence, Analysis, Conclusion. Whether Motl's comments are right or wrong, they are useless without evidence and analysis that proves his assertions. It appears that your understanding of the scientific process is very limited. It does, though, suit a lazy form of argument.

SkS identifies events in the past happening as fast as todays rapid rise: "In Earth's past the trigger for these greenhouse gas emissions was often unusually massive volcanic eruptions known as “Large Igneous Provinces,” with knock-on effects that included huge releases of CO2 and methane from organic-rich sediments". Such volcanoes definitely geologic instants. However, CO2 increases driving ice age retreats much much slower that todays rapid rise.

Judith Curry's papers in the 3%. Her views outweighed by the 97%. Like Motl, your comment on honesty is without evidence, and somewhat sad.

If you have some spare time, you could review the science and other matters on my web site: my-info.co

Oh Dear, a lot more wasted argument on climate change.
When are you all going to realise that it does not matter whether the
climate is getting warmer or it is not ?

There is not enough fossil fuels available at an economic cost to burn !
Forget all this arguing about how to stop something that will not
happen and put your effort into whatever our new energy regime is going to be.