The key issue remains the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the observations: 2014 just made the discrepancy larger."

Any discrepancy indicates either that the models do not reflect the theory or if they do the theory has been falsified. Either situation means that whatever is going on simply cannot be called "science".

What I fail to understand (and please help understand out without trolling) is IF the "global warming alarmists" are wrong, the most you had to give up was driving your hummer for a more fuel effecient vehicle while living by a set of rules that might curb a few activities. Mind you I am not even saying that such acitivites will be eliminated, but curbed a little bit.
If the "global warming alarmists" are right, well, can you really afford to take that chance? Seeing that there is only one planet and if the ice age, and hell or whatever rains down on earth should be cause for alarm in my opinion. I don't even care to argue WHEN it will happen.

The kind of things being advocated include the likes of "carbon credits", which are basically financial con games. Very unlikely to make a difference once way or the other. So called "green" electricity tends to be simply expensive. When everthing is taken into account wind and solar can end up with higher "carbon footprints" than just burning fossil fuels.
The proposed "solutions" are simply a poor match with the alleged "problem". On the other hand you don't tend to see things like demands that AGW conferances be performed online or a big switch to nuclear for electricity generation.

You're missing the point that water freezes at 32 degrees*, so if the ice fields warm by 1.4 degrees, the result is a lot of messing with the world's oceans, which in turn means significant changes in the atmosphere.

Just because that is the phase change point that does not mean that all, even most ice, on the planet is anywhere near that temperature. In the summer Antartica might manage -4 Farenheit.
Sea ice melting or freezing makes no difference to sea level at all, BTW.

Keep in mind that in that roughly 150 year period we are talking about because of increased carbon dioxide concentrations, the world oceans are now 30% more acidic than they were then. The next 100 years will see a another 30% decrease in Hydronium ion concentrations even if humans don't add a single extra molecule of carbon dioxide themselves as the amount already in the atmosphere will take some time to reach equilibrium with that already there.

What's actually happened here is that there is a difference of 0.1pH between some proxy reconstructions related to 150 years ago and some actual measurements taken recently. Since modern pH meters, from different suppliers, can differ by up to 0.3 the difference is meaningless. Do climate scientists understand that pH is a log scale, thus ONE unit would equate to a 1000% change.

However, the reality is that although the baseline of annual carbon dioxide production by all the volcanoes in the world is about 250,000,000 metric tons, the amount humans now produce annually is 33,000,000,000 tons, so it is highly unlikely that humans will turn this around soon.

The figure for vulcanism is very difficult to verify. Since most of the Earth's surface, including some highly vocanically active areas, is covered with water. The likes of geothermal vents are likely to be difficult to spot under the ocean. These will be putting strong acids. Yet the oceans manage to buffer an unknown quantity of these. Carbon dioxide in water forms a weak acid. Even with all of the possible carbon dioxide on Earth in them the oceans would still be alkaline.

Let us know when we can download the raw unprocessed data to feed into their pet algorithm. Yeah... you are about to link to some place where you THINK the raw data is... but you are wrong... thats processed data ("adjusted")

Unless you know exactly how it has been altered such data is useless for showing anything at all. A basic case of GIGO.

and they keep altering the old, already processed, data.... funny that.
(I am a witness to it - quite simple really, download their data... wait 4 weeks and download it again... do a difference.. note how old data keeps changing)

Thus the only useful thing you can do is analyse how said data is being changed. Especially given that there is no good reason to be altering supposedly archived data.

I'm curious, how do they average for the whole year? Is it monthly averages that they average for the year? Is it daily data that is averaged for the whole year?
Whilst in theory they'd be the same in practice the former could be more affected by rounding errors than the latter.
There might also be the oddity that the daily "average" is that of the highest and lowest recorded on a specific "day" whereas the the other "averages" are arithmetic means. The possible complication with "day" is that differences between conventional "local time" and local time according the longitude can vary greatly.
Another reason why raw data (and metadata) can be so important...

wow. and you wonder why people like me (skeptics, not deniers) find it hard to take you seriously when you resort to lambasting people for asking questions.

The scientific method relies on theories being "falsifiable". The specific aim is to try as hard as possible to prove a theory wrong. Being a skeptic tends to be a very good thing when it comes to this process.

And what exactly does that mean? I can give you a list of biologists who claim Intelligent Design is true. It's a small list, dwarfed by the number of biologists who outright repudiate ID.

The scientific method does not use logical fallacies.
Instead it uses theories which are intended explain all of the relevent facts (be they from observation or experiment). N.B. It is perfectly ok to have more than one theory assuming all of them fit with the available facts. (Principles such as Occamâ(TM)s Razor can be applied to favour theories with the least number of assumptions, especially untestable assumptions.) Scientific theories can make testable predictions. Most importantly they are falsifiable, with one wrong answer being more important than a million right ones.
ID involves no falsifiable theories. Therefore it is not science.
AGW has made many specfic predictions, mostly through "climate models". However they are at odds with what has actually happened with the Earth's climate. Clinging to a falsified "theory" is not science either.

Right now, what's happening is that these feedback loops are handling a good chunk of the extra energy retained by CO2 so that actual atmosphereic warming is not terribly pronounced. But there's a tipping point. Once the amount of energy exceeds the capacity for these feedback loops to handle, it's going to shut down, and the moderating factor suddenly ceases to exist. The precise points are uncertain, but we know it'll happen based on what we see happening in smaller systems. For example, as prey increases, predators will also increase. This results in prey decline and then predator decline. But if due to external circumstances, the predator population grows out of control, or the prey population is completely decimated, both predator and prey (whichever wasn't affected by the initial event) will die off.

What you are in effect saying is knowing how a small, simple, well understood system behaves will tell you how a large, complex, poorly understood system would behave. Even though every attempt to model the Earth's climate system has completly failed. The truth is that we really don't have a clue what is happening, let alone why.

The real open questions today involve when things will happen, and how bad they'll get when these things do happen. For example, if one system fails, it can cause a domino effect on all the other feedback loops and cause them to fail too. That's a possibility. But it's also a possibility that the feedback loop most susceptable to failure won't affect the others much. It's possible that this will happen in a century. Or it's possible there are yet more feedback loops that we currently don't know about that'll push significant atomspheric temperature increase farther into the future.

If you don't know if a feedback loop even exists you can't possibly speculate as to its nature. There could just as easily be negative feedbacks which have yet to be triggered. A very obvious negative feedback for carbon dioxide being photosythesis. N.B. looking at the biology of both plants and animals could lead to the conclusion that current carbon dioxide levels are LOW.

Probably not (temperature reconstructions are problematic, which is why I say 'probably'). If you look at temperature reconstructions for the last 1,500 years, they vary but you can see there are clearly measured periods of time with a rapid rise in temperature, before the industrial age. Look at the time period at the year 750, for example.

These reconstructions are just that. They simply cannot be meaningfully compared with instrument readings. Short term changes (especially if they are cyclic) may be obvious on the latter, but completly missed by the former.

Smoking in public spaces was as much your "right" not long ago. What the law allows is subject to renegotiation. In this case there is a compelling argument that unrealized value to the public might be had by controlling wifi access. There are also compelling arguments that say this could undermine some other virtues as well. After all this looks a little bit like the encroachments on net neutrality and compelling cases have been made for keeping the net open. But it may be you who is arrogant to assert that my arguments are specious by saying I'm taking your "right". It's just a regulation and one the FCC has already sought public comment on in contemplating changing it, so it's not really a "right".

Another example might be proposals to lightly tax stock trades to curb abuses by privledged high frequency trading networks . Is it your right to freely contract with others? Or would most people be better off if abuses of the market that skim your profits by advantaged traders were ended.

Creating a regulated market often allows greater access and use of themarket by the public. My original post noted that more people would benefit than lose. Peace of mind is not a trivial things when losing your gmail password can ruin you.

Warnings in my hotel room Do me no good in the lobby or bar or front desk when I'm trying to pull up my reservation on the e-mail.

As I noted, blue tooth works fine for tethers. Blue tooth requires pairing so it's not anonymous like Wifi. USB is often convenient as well, especially when I'm charging things. Blocking wifi doesn't inconvenience me at all for tethering.

As a thought experiment, if they could technologically create a reliable perimeter to their blocking would you then be in favor of it?

Technically it is possible to do such a thing either by clever directional electronics or by simple agreement with the neighbors. They might not go that extra mile of course but they could, and in fact they pretty much would have to if their neighbors complained to the FCC. Furthermore, most of the marriots I have stayed in are isolated buildings so the strawman you describe would never occur at many of their locations.

Isn't this just the same as bars that jam cell phones. It's a customer service. People go there to escape their own ambient connectivity and the grating rudeness of person at the next table talking on their cell. It seems very logical to me that businesses should be able to control the airwaves in their own spaces.

I know I'll get hammered for saying I was in favor of what marroitt did but here me out. When I travel, I'm terrified of connecting to hotel networks. I don't really know which of the many possible SSIDs that I see are the bonified hotel network. And since it's normal on Hotel networks to do some DNS redirection to hand you off to the authorization site, you really can trust anything that masquerades in that way either.

Thus I'd gladly forego the trivial inconvenience of them blocking my wifi tether to my phone network (to bypass the hotel network), if they would take charge of their airwaves and block all rogue hotspots in their building. Peace of mind.

Now the litmus test here would be, are they just doing that to make money by taking away something I have for no extra cost (my cell phone tether) or do they really have my interests at heart in squelching hostile wifi hotspots? And that's really easy to figure out. If they allow short range blue tooth then they haven't taken anything away from me. I can still tether just as well as I could before.

So I gain peace of mind and lose nothing of value if they do this. Why should I not like this.

Now I suppose someone could dream up an edge case like say a LAN party or maybe some poor-mans meeting where one fellow is hosting all the others on his little conference room server. But that's so narrow a case ocmapred to the millions of guests all of whom just want a safe casual ad hoc connection to check their e-mail. Lan pary people too cheap to pay for the connection can probably figure a workaround anyhow.