Once again you demonstrate your complete inability to understand basic physics. The coldness of the 17th century did not cause subsequent warming. The climate never “recovers”. There is no equilibrium point to which it will inevitably return after a perturbation. This is easy to understand. That you can’t tells us all we need to know about the inadequacy of your intellect.

“it is very, very difficult to reconcile past warming to high-sensitivity forecasts”

Replace “difficult” with “straightforward” and your statement becomes accurate. Alternatively, replace “high” with “low”. Your problem is that you are too stupid to understand the basics of climate change attribution – as demonstrated time and time again with your bleating about “natural recovery”.

“It takes a lot of mathematical contortions, from time-delays to cooling aerosols to ignoring ocean cycles and natural recovery from the little ice age”

Time delays in the climate system and the cooling effect of aerosols are fundamental physical facts, not “mathematical contortions”. No-one ignores ocean cycles. There is no such thing as “natural recovery”.

Your infantile ramblings are amusing to watch but also very depressing. It’s your utter inability to learn that’s worst, as demonstrated by your refusal ever to respond to simple basic points and your constant regurgitation of the same old bullshit. No doubt we’ll soon see you trot out your favourite inanities about “long-term stable” before too long.

All justified by their ecochondria affliction, to say nothing of out of control hubris and a professional ethical standard that is somewhere very far south of the bottom of a cesspit.

And this is in the Guardian, too. Still nothing in most American media, but it will come.