I have noticed only those people like Ian and Ottawa Mike like to refer to it as "CAGW". I think that's their way of saying that they accept that there is some anthropogenic global warming (so they don't look like complete blithering idiots), but it's no big deal and we should all move on and ignore it.

Of course they never define what they mean by "catastrophic". I think it's like "minor" vs. "major" surgery (whether it's on you or on me). Maybe spending trillions of dollars and thousands of human lives is not catastrophic to them--as long as it's not their money or their life.

And I do find it childish the way people mangle your YA name or my YA name (or call me she, when everyone knows I'm a he) in an attempt to bully us. When people do that, they seem like 7th graders.

No, but 'CAGW' has been presented as if it is a theory proposed by Climate Science, and I am curious as to its origins. I've never read it in any of the scientific literature or heard it proposed by any serious scientist at least in the context I've been lead to understand it is used.

In fact, earlier and in a response to another 'question' that seemed to target someone who may have been you except your name was spelled wrong and you were misquoted I asked if anyone had a link to the origins and meaning of 'CAGW.' Even if it was a legitimate theory it wouldn't disprove AGW, it might just postulate that AGW could occur The Day After Tomorrow, which is how the opposition view appears to interpret it...like 'tipping points' critics, who say 'hey, 2009 was supposedly a tipping point and we're still here. Hel-ooo-oooh.' (I'm no fan of tipping point prognosticators, BTW)

The beginnings of climate science goes back to 1880s and maybe sooner which it was hypothesized CO2 would increase warming There were a number of scientists in the 50s who were in agreement. it the late 70s climate science became a real thing in our modern times

With any luck, Ian may be able to disprove himself and move on to browner pastures He certainly can't disprove AGW nor can any of the other denier ilk

Anyone who truly believes it is a hoax is possibly diumber than a box of rocks

No, it is just a denialist ad hom

As conspiracy theory alarmist Ian "suggests":

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140311130752AAI9xzM

(My pen name here is Hey Dook, not that it matters to addicted anti-science liars or anyone else).