Nice try, but no. CAGW = Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and it describes the point of view of alarmism on climate quite well.
There is no formal definition of what CAGW is, you could even stick to one definition for a single sentence, you used two very different examples of what it supposedly means. All in all, it's useful rhetorical trickery used to make sure you never have to deal honestly with people you disagree with. You always just one goalpost shift away from continuing the argument.
When public narrative out there uses terms like 'greatest moral challenge of our time',
Dealing with AGW may, in fact, be the "greatest moral challenge of our time" but that has nothing to do with your argument. It's a moral question of doing nothing now so we benefit at the cost of our inheritors, or take minor inconvenient actions now and pass the savings on to those who come after us. The cost of dealing with AGW adaptation and mitigation rises the more we delay on taking action. In addition, the atmosphere is a global commons, and dumping CO2 into it is a mostly invisible action. Can the world work together to achieve a universally beneficial goal when it's so easy to cheat the system?
You are free of course to disagree with that assessment, but my simply point is that phrase "greatest moral challenge of our time" does not need to imply that there a catastrophe lurking around the corner, perhaps you have confused it with "greatest mortal challenge of our time" which would indeed imply an incoming catastrophe.
and slogans like 'no jobs on a dead planet',
On the other hand "no jobs on a dead planet" is a union slogan, and slogans are often hyperbolic. It is a catchy phrase that clearly communicates the point that job concerns and environmental concerns are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that I am projecting my own views onto such groups, but until you mentioned it, I had never heard that particular slogan before.
Maybe you can actually reference skeptics how have done this, flip-flopped on data sets, doesn't change the fact that warming is not as much as projected. And you yourself keep changing your argument without explaining why you are abandoning your prior argument, first it was all statistical quackery, then it's not a big deal this slowdown, and now you are trying the 'a good defence is an offence' strategy by asserting skeptics are cyclical and selective in their datasets, when this is exactly what alarmists are doing by abandoning discussion of trends in favour of discussing instances where Tmax records are being set.
I have not changed or abandoned any of my previous arguments. It is statistical quackery, while atmospheric temperatures are rising slower than projected, those slower periods are common and expected. The quackery is in pretending that this is new and unprecedented and in choosing start and end dates to exaggerate the length of the period. Furthermore, the escalator graph clearly shows how if you followed the behaviour of these self-proclaimed skeptics you could always claim we are in a slow warming, no warming or cooling trend even while the temperature steadily rises. This is expected because the data is noisy and not monotonic. In every non-record year there is a previous higher record year, the slope from that year to any year except the next record setting year will always be below 0. This is simple mathematics and it is critically important to understanding how you are being manipulated. The current "no warming" rhetoric which you occasionally use is no different from the obviously incorrect use that could have been applied to any similar period in the past. Maybe you haven't been following my arguments as closely as you think you have?
Yeah that is interesting, the NASA link though is more about how the histogram of anomalies is trending decade to decade, I assume it is yearly or seasonally adjusted anomalies here, not daily Tmin Tmax records, but it shows a growing fat tail anomaly which does support overall higher likelyhood of max temps.
SKS link is as trustworthy as SKS always is (as in not at all).
Ad hominem, don't attack the site, attack the argument. In this case they provided a link to the paper and summarised the findings, you didn't bother to indicate what you found "untrustworthy about that.
My original point is that record counts in a period of a pause after a period of warming is normal outcome for variable highly autocorrelated data. It does not invalidate the observation of a pause. It is actually consistent with it. The concluding point is that counting record events simply isn't a robust mechanism for qualitative analysis.
Just counting them isn't, but you can do some robust analysis based on frequency and distribution with a sufficiently large time period. For example, in a stable climate you would expect the frequency of extreme events to drop off and for them to be roughly evenly distributed towards warm and cold events. If your results differ significantly from that null hypothesis it indicates that the climate is not stable. That type of analysis can be informative.
When some skeptics make a big deal out of record winter lows, they are shouted down, and rightly so and they are shouted down by skeptics too. But presumably reporting on Tmax records and saying to paraphrase : "on-noes is the global warming!", is perfectly fine. Presumably. Actually... no.... it isn't okay.
Sure, a new daily maximum record isn't good evidence of global warming, but I can see how this argument relates to anything I actually wrote. I was still talking about the "pause" rhetoric and why it's statistical quackery. Specifically, if you choose the last record high as the starting point for a slope you can always choose a recent year where you can show the slope is negative or close to zero. It's deliberately misleading and very common among self-proclaimed skeptics.