Oh, I'd agree that the data showing g.w. has stopped is not the end of the discussion. Likewise, the extremely erratic history of climatological 'science' over the past 4 decades is not the final word.

My point was, these things should be part of the discussion, and are not. I think any reasonable analysis would lead to the conclusion that the burden lies upon climatologists to prove that they are not -- THIS TIME -- Chicken Little's nest mates.

(The sky is falling; the sky is falling. . . . No, the seas are rising; the seas are rising!)