Judy,
I like the Guardian’s photo. I hope you do too. The colors in the glasses has a nice psychedelic tone, which is always cool for scientists to have.
Onto Dana’s points.
His first point is that the Rose’s main claim has been fabricated. His second point is that Rose’s OP went viral in the echo chamber. His third point is that focusing on the last 15 years might look like a trick. His fourth point is that the concept of warming should not be reserved to good old atmospheric metric.
Et cetera. Instead of reading the article for you, I believe the summary is a good place to start addressing Dana’s points:
To sum up, Rose and Curry were simply incorrect in virtually every assertion made in this Daily Mail article.
Global surface temperatures have most likely increased since 1997.
Focusing on short-term temperature changes confuses short-term noise and long-term signal.
Most global warming goes into heating the oceans, and as Nuccitelli et al. (2012) showed, global warming has not slowed.
Natural variability is much smaller than the long-term global warming signal, and smaller even than the global warming signal over the past two decades.
The slowed rate of global surface warming over the past decade is consistent with individual model runs, which show that these ‘hiatus decades’ are entirely expected.
Over the long-term, the Earth has warmed as much as expected.
Carbon pricing will result in a net benefit the economy as compared to doing nothing and trying to adapt to the consequences.
I will save myself the effort to look how your OP stands to most of this, and instead suggest you to respond to all the points in a way that all your points are connected together into a comprehensive whole. That way, it would be less easy to pick the hanging fruits into your argument, and your overall argumentation will gain in modularity.
***
Oh, and I believe that Neven’s point is that Rose and the GWPF might be communicating in the most opportunistic way. They really do seem to run with talking points. I don’t think you can disagree with this, or at the very least, that Rose’s main claim does not smell right.
This concession is not that harmful: at worse, it entails you explain why you cited them somewhat approvingly, which considering your recent “Tell that to the IPCC” it should not be difficult to do.