Yes. Context and proportionality! Risk vs reward...liberty vs "security"!

Is sarcasm your natural way of speaking? Again you're missing the point. Brett asked for criticism, and I pointed out what I considered to be a possible problem. Please, if you can't be constructive, just keep it to yourself.

Thanks Don. I'm still trying to follow your logic (or your account of their logic) for how and why CO2 is the driver here. So, more CO2 allows more of the sun's energy to pass THROUGH the atmosphere, thus heating our planet's surface? And it also contributes to preventing that same heat energy from dissipating OUT? I think we would both agree that is a fantastic claim--it's a bi-polar greenhouse gas?! But seriously, is any of this their argument?

You kinda went to left field in your first paragraph. There were no models to be falsified in the case of butter, and the data wasn't there either. The original work it the policies were based on was unscientific in that it explicitly excluded the data which showed there was no correlation, let alone no causation. For cpglobak warming the fact that data was falsified to support the claim is clear evidence it didn't exist. If you have to falsify the data it means you do t have data supporting your assertion. In the future do try to avoid a paragraph of strawmen, please.

You mismiteroeted the question. A cyclic change is not the same as a consistent change. A consistent change would be which breaks the cycle, establishing a new pattern. A cycle repeating itself is not change, merely a continuation if the cycle. The underlying claim to CAGW, or even AGW, is that the natural cycles are gone, replaced with consistent increases in global average temperature. The claim that we have broken the natural cycle is not supported by the a available data.

Your next paragraph, in the certainty of risk. The answer is no we don't. When pressed, even CAGW proponents admit they don't know this. You won't get this by reading summaries, especially of the IPCC variety. Yet even there, when you dig into the actual meat of the work they say they do NOT have the level of certainty to make the assertions the summary for policy makers claims. As to your assertions, no we do not have a quantification in how much humans may be accelerating natural cycles, and the proponents of CAGW are in fact claiming the opposite. They are specifically claiming we broke the cycle.

As to your final one, the answer is that an average of the average temperatures of sensors haphazardly distributed over a tiny fraction of the planet's surface is nit valid. It would be simple to demonstrate it being so, yet even attempts to correlate changes in the "average global temperature" to any change in any local climate have shown them to exist. It goes back to predictive vs non, if you can make reliable,mcinsistent oredictiins based from the model that for every N units of change, in either direction, in the average of averages we call the global temperature, a specific and quantifiable event occurs you have a valuable model. You'd also have what decades and billions of dollars of research by people who depend on it being true have failed to produce.

Therefor,pe, any change in the "global average" won't make you move crops or people. You can change that number by selecting the stations you want to get the direction change you want, and only doing that for the years you want to change. Consider this thought experiment:

You have a 5,000 sq foot home. You get to place 10 thermometers, but two must go in the freezer(s) and one in refrigerator. This leaves you seven to put anywhere. At least two of them go in direct sunlight and one near an HVAC duct. You record your daily temps for each of them for three years. You then average that daily average into an annual average. Note: you take the average of averages, not eh average of all temperatures.

First, would you say that average adequately represents the climate of your house?

Next, you remove the two from the freezer. Also, in two or three of the rooms you added some electronics right next to your sensors. But you never moved the sensors.

Will there be a change in your house average temperature? Will it go up? Now a couple years later will the average temperature as defined above change? Will it go up? Is that now valid scientific data you have houseal warming? Does it mean your spouse or kids have been cranking up the thermostat behind your back?

If that sounds like a poor way to manage data, you would be right. Yet that sequence of events is a microcosm of what has happened to our sensor system. With the fall of the USSR, a significant chunk of stations went offline. They were all in places that are cold pretty much all of the time,mlikemSiberiamformexampl m

Meanwhile sensor sites measured increases in temperature as a direct result of local land use changes but we're still treated as if they had no changes. If you don't think placing a thermo Ina pasture willmgivemdifferent temps when that pasture is turned into Tarmac or parking lot,Mir a budding with HVAC is set a mere 40' away, then go try them yourself. The difference is clear.

And finally, by definition, an average of averages isn't a measurement at all, therefore it can not be a valid measurement.

Man this text box is tiny, I hope there aren't too many typos above.