And should we be concerned about your beliefs? Why?

Hard to make judgement call on the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and whether they are wasting their time, but I'd say it seems like a worthy cause - unless you meant the International Plasma Protein Congress (IPPC)? Or perhaps the International Probabilistic Planning Competition? or the The International Pastors' and Partners' Conference (IPPC)?

If anything, the models being wrong would make us MORE pessimistic and increase the urgency of action to prevent further climate change. Because if the models don't correlate to actual temperature then it is just as likely they will underestimate future temperature rises as overestimate. The view 'the models are wrong' is actually a pessimistic view.

You are drawing a picture for me, because your refusal to answer a simple question paints the picture as clearly as an essay on the subject would do.

Well, firstly, nothing you do or say is going to make me shut up. No amount of hand gesticulation will halt the growing wave of tsunami of community anger and frustration at denial. You imagine that our patience is infinite. It is not.

Secondly you seem to be confused about exactly what your assertion was. You said that the cost of mitigation is more expensive than the cost of not mitigating and adapting (thus contradicting Stern et al). To put it into slow words for the slow among us, this has nothing to do with the choice or lack of choice.

Now cite a paper or article that proves your assertion ( the cost of mitigation is more expensive than the cost of not mitigating and adapting), or do so yourself.

You need to be more specific. Narrow your description of your proof down from "something, somewhere" proves your assertion, to an actual, verifiable and believable reason. Otherwise, your proof has all the credibility of a guy screaming "A Wizard did it!"

I see. Then what is the actual rate of climate sensitivity to CO2? Demonstrate your estimate of sensitivity with reference to the climate record and allowing for differences in feedbacks.

So in fact the impacts of climate change could be far worse than current predictions?

If you can't prove your assertion, it has all the credibility of screaming "A Wizard did it!"

Which is your claim: that they are mysteriously right but nobody can explain why, and nobody can demonstrate the truth of what they are saying empirically or even summarise it, using, you know, words, and we should just believe them. In other words, a wizard did it. IF there is some proof that the theory of AGW is wrong, provide this proof (as published in a reputable journal) along with working. We're waiting.

To summarize - you can't cite a study because you know, conspiracy theory. TIme travelling zombie tyndall flits from school to school, making sure that no-one ever discovers that CO2 is not, in fact, a greenhouse gas.

Well, thanks for letting us know that a wizard did it.

You can't subtract 30 from 2014?

Yes, you probably remember waking up on Christmas night and meeting santa claus under the tree as well. You'll have to excuse my skepticism, but I'm disinclined to accept you lurid fantasies as a substitute for actual proof.

Something something sunspots something something. Well, I'm convinced.

Is it, or isn't it? If they ARE saying something else, this qualifies as a theory, which contradicts your claim that they are mysteriously right but nobody can explain why, and nobody can demonstrate the truth of what they are saying empirically or even summarise it, using, you know, words, and we shoudl just believe them. In other words, a wizard did it.

Exactly like that claim.

Nope. Don't care about your ridiculous fantasies.

empiracle?

Cite a paper that backs this assertion

Yes. In what sense is that not blindingly obvious from the sentence: waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory (that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different).?

No idea. Do conspiracy theorists and wiccans get published? Perhaps if they would if they, I dunno, did science.

What debate is that?

I should think that any geo-engineering attempt to reduce atmospheric CO2 would have to be on a massive scale - there will be plenty of time for the anxious to voice their concerns and present their evidence.

Besides, if anything I think we've been far TOO consultative through this process. We spent what? 30 years listening to denialists and waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory (that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different). This is probably 25 years too long compromising to an alternate hypothesis with all the scientific credentials of a guy screaming "A witch did it!".