No, it isn't. One of the more strident warnings from the AGW researchers is that our current behavior may - a small but far too large probability - set off a positively reinforced runaway of some kind and duration, for example - that we are not in control of this situation, and once started some of the possibilities will be unstoppable. The next degree or two of rapid average temperature boost is out of our hands now, for another example - we can't stop it with our current means. You can't make that meaningless stupidity relevant no matter what you assume. Another falsehood. Bizarre and incoherent bs. You will never make sense until you drop that silly notion of an optimal temperature. By which posting you prove I was correct, and that idiocy is in fact your argument. I do no such thing. I may illustrate what's wrong with your ignorant presumptions by specific example, sometimes, especially if (as with the overheating destroying agriculture matter) you insist that I provide specific examples - no limitation of your error to those examples is indicated. Exactly the opposite is the case. Not your doubt. Your doubt is based on assumptions of bias, assumptions of fact, and assumptions of political agenda, which are not legitimate themselves and not legitimately employed in your assessments. Your assumptions are ignorant, and wrong. Your employment of them is mistaken. Doubt based on such an approach is a denial of established reality and sound estimation. You are denying AGW, and your denial is absurd.