Don,
World Net Daily rang you got the job, you’re going to replace Lord Mockingtion starting next months as their official global warming denier and general contrarian.
Their lead story they want you to write has the bi-line “Asbestos is it really that bad”?

'morning Don,

A provocative article for the alarmists and ho hum, told you so from the deniers.

You will be ridiculed ('morning Cobber), vilified, shot as the messenger, bombed with links to group think, served with large portions of emotive rhetoric and treated as intellectually challenged.

This will be because that is all the alarmists have left.

At the risk of killing off your thread, we only need to ask why they bother to try to convince us of their science, when all they have to do is to write to the UN and make their case to the people who invented it in the first place.

What they will never even spot is the fact that in trying to convince the public and our politicians, they are acknowledging the fact that CAGW is a political issue rather than scientific. But hey! Who am I tooting to that fact that they have become victims of their own ideology.

Don, I agree a fair bit about the 2 degree target. It was always going to be unachievable, largely as a result of a lack of action on political fronts. For the rest of your argument, sadly it is much the same tired old stuff. Just some general comments about where you have gone wrong.

1. “because on the evidence a warmer world is better for nearly all living things”

The evidence in fact contradicts such a statement. In fact most of the evidence points to increased risks to species as varied as coral http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5857/1737.short to polar bears http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/09-1641.1. Frankly, anyone living in Australia would recognise that a 2 degree increase in temperature would make more of the country less productive due to earlier heat stress in spring http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02262.x/full, and less comfortable to humans due to increased summer temperatures.

2. “The Pause has just passed its 18th year on the RSS dataset”

There are in fact two data sets of global surface temperatures GISS http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt and HadCRUT http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4-gl.dat. Both show a significant increase in global temperatures since 1998 averaging 0.07 degrees per decade. On current projections HadCRUT4 has 2014 on track to be the equal warmest year in the 164 year data set. RSS is a data set of lower troposphere temperatures, like the UAH data set. RSS is the only data set which shows no significant warming if cherry-picked from a 1998 starting point. So that raises the question, why did you select the only data set that shows no significant warming as your evidence?

Why bring up this stupid subject again and again? It's dead and buried!

‘morning Agronomist,

Many thanks for your timely “scientific” response and acknowledgement that the failure of CAGW is “largely as a result of a lack of action on political fronts” Bingo.

Now all you have to do is follow the advice offered previously.

Just send your posts and associated scientific links to the IPCC, ask them to raise your science concerns with the politicians who invented it.

Please ensure you keep OLO’ers posted on any responses you get.

If you don’t happen to get a response then I guess you will have to find a way to live without the UNFCCC, IPCC, the science, the absence of Kyoto, the collapse of emissions trading markets, the collapse of the RENIXX renewable industry index, the global decline in renewables subsidies, of the original 119 signatories to Kyoto there are now just 11, a global glut of fossil fuels and the absence of Germany, India, Russia, Japan, Australia, NZ, Canada, Poland and China at the climate talk fest.

It all seems to be going quite well for you really don’t you think? That “science” of yours is certainly having an impact? What is it with you and dead parrots?

Got any more of those links please, mmmm delicious

spindoc,

Maybe you should equate the inaction by govts and world bodies in the same way as with Ebola, where the seriousness of the threat was not acted on more quickly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/10/04/how-ebola-sped-out-of-control/

"The virus easily outran the plodding response. The WHO, an arm of the United Nations, is responsible for coordinating international action in a crisis like this, but it has suffered budget cuts, has lost many of its brightest minds and was slow to sound a global alarm on Ebola. Not until Aug. 8, 4 1/2 months into the epidemic, did the organization declare a global emergency. Its Africa office, which oversees the region, initially did not welcome a robust role by the CDC in the response to the outbreak."

Always a laugh a minute (don't you think) when govts and world bodies ignore such threats when there's still time to thwart disaster.

Does initial inaction on the Ebola front equate to there having been no threat of it getting out of control?

Seems that's the the way you look at climate science and its inadequate response from govts who are merely interested in propping up the status quo.