total global pollution levels and the rate of additional pollution. Quoting GDP intensity levels is the first hint of pro-pollutionist word-spin. Cadbury's reference to the Lindt word-jumble is refuted here: http://tinyurl.com/3wqrl5s It's basically trying to make the worst-case the mid-line (pin the tail on the alarmist), while it glorifies the supply side. Voice of Reason's argument is just demanding that the warming obey 0-delay commands. It doesn't. Set your stove to 400dF and count to 10, if the oven isn't 400dF ... there's something wrong with the theory of ovens. What really happens is what is really observed and recorded. The science lays out the mid-line. The thing that's affected recent trends is a series of La Nina's, a long solar minimum, and some exceptional global wetting (which is the perfect transport of heat into the ocean). The 'slowdown' has also recorded the record-setting temperature levels and extreme events that walks and quacks like an AGW. There hasn't been any cooling trend for over half a century. The article illustrates that the public and private sectors worldwide are on a fossil-fuel expansion binge. The next 'boom' is going to knock the levels and rates off the charts. The world walked away from common sense when it trashed Kyoto. It destroyed Copenhagen with a B&E. Add to that the next El Nino or two; and the ramp-up of Solar Cycle 24: Now synthesize a forecast onto the graphs: (currently a record low) (currently a record low) The world isn't in love