Questions remain for the AGW alarmists, page-33

All your babble about NASA & the determination of the RSS data and the tech-fog it is all nested in, corroborates your general ignoratio elenchi and overall lack of comprehension, Ivar Glaevar's point is simply that the increment of 0.8ºK is based on measurements taken in and about the 1860's should not be a basis for any conclusion.

Especially a material decision where billions of dollars of your(?) or my taxes, and millions of other good people's hard earned cash will be handed over to the United Nations in attempt to bio-engineering the planet. This Quixotic quest has never been achieved on Earth ever. The arrogance is mind-blowing, and no consideration is given to either the most likely failure in the quest, or the great advantages of a planet warmed, may well afford.

Their's is not scientific method - it is dreaming.

This is not complicated & Glaever is not trying to be erudite nor clever. He is way past the need to do so. He is being cautionary.

What you and the GREEN malaise make over this trite understanding is Kafkaesque in the extreme. "Kafkatrapping" is the methodology I believe.

The sage dictum "Bullshit Baffles Brains" springs to mind.

You deserve no more of my time. [Squishes the cockroach!]