One of the curious features about this debate about AGW is that...

One of the curious features about this debate about AGW is that the parameters for the debate were established by the AGW crowd. They gave us the global air temperatures and then they insisted that the rise in global air temperatures was due SOLELY to CO2. They gave us no other alternative. Those who wanted to look to the past 2000 years to historically known cooling and heating periods were not allowed to draw any conclusions and say the rise could just be due to natural causes. No, the AGW crowd went out of their way to try and bury any evidence for those historic occasions. They assiduously ignore them.

Unfortunately for the AGW crowd the air temperature has suddenly stopped rising according to the data given to us by them. It is their data. But at the same time CO2 has just kept rising. Being beaten over the head by this fact they have been looking frantically for an explanation to suit the CO2 hypothesis which the data has killed stone dead (data always kills hypotheses if they do not match up.)
I have read somewhere that at least six different ideas have been proposed to explain the inexplicable. The best and most powerful from an Oz point of view (it seems Oz climate blokes are behind it) is the "heat is all in the water now". I think this is a case of seeing a tree but not seeing the forest. If the reason for the current temperature hiatus is the water explanation the AGW crowd must explain how there has been a shift from heat accumulation in air to heat accumulation in water. Surely the water mechanism they propose has always been there. Why was it not working when air temp was rising?

Some insist that it is a pure scientific matter. It would be nice if it were but when Gore made his unconveniently untrue movie he turned it from a scientific discussion into a political one. He proposed political action and insisted it be imposed an all mankind. Once it is political everything is up for grabs.