Stephen, rather than re-typing chunks of your post I will respond in bold against each as necessary:
"If natural cycles conspire to cool the next 20 years, what happens when they conspire to warm the 20 after that, plus all the additional greenhouse warming?"
Well then we are back to proportionality and timing.
No, we are still at risk assessment and mitigation.
If any AGW effect is only a very small proportion of natural variability then for at least 200 years all we will see is a very slight elevation of temperature throughout the natural cycle and since cold is worse for us than warmth the net outcome will be beneficial.
You have absolutely no basis for this statement. Firstly it reveals your underlying denial of any real threat, contrary to predictions. Secondly, you are once aagin displaying a annthropomorphic view of AGW. We depend on the health of the entire biosphere for our survival and your casual disregard for the other species on the planet is myopic in the extreme.
Then there is the issue as to what the practical effect of a slightly warmer world really is. If the only effect is to shift the jets a bit then absolute global temperature isn't of much significance anyway.
Again, you don't have any solid proof for this supposition and indeed your comments are contradicted by the data. Many places are warming that lie inside the belt where the jets move - even you just have to be aware of this.
As we can see now, climate changes in specific regions arise primarily from changes in the air circulation above rather than from a change in absolute global temperature. The effect of the former is far far greater than the effect of the latter.
See above - simply not the case.
Since the natural air circulation changes are so big anyway any human effect is pretty insignificant and a tiny incremental change is unlikely to activate any tipping points when one bears in mind that the natural air circulation adjustments are so much greater anyway. Such adjustments are always negative to any forcing trend whether towards warming or cooling which is why the system is stable enough for the Earth to have retained liquid oceans for billions of years.
This statement presumes that your previous assumptions are correct, which they are not and therefore this statement is simply unsupported and wrong.
The UN estimates for global population stability (and then decline) have been brought forward to the mid 21st century because prosperous peoples always reproduce at slower than replacement rate so soon enough the population issue will go away of it's own accord. A managed decline in global population over the next 500 years is the most likely scenario.
Another of your favourite hobby horses. You ignore the fact that the current global population is already putting unmanageable strains on the ecosystem - examples below.
That then just leaves resource and pollution pressure but technology and a free world can deal with that better than centrally directed authoritarianism would with its energy rationing via an artifically inflated global pricing mechanism.
OK good, that only leaves resource and pollution pressure.... The threats are almost endless but includes over-fishing, over-grazing, failure of irrigation systems and damage to soil from salt deposits, rapidly falling water tables.
If one looks back 200 years the technological changes have been incredible and the pace of it keeps quickening.
If we have more trhan 200 years without a significant human induced climate effect then the whole AGW scare is an irrelevant and dangerous distraction which could actually delay our progress towards a long term sustainable relationship with the world.
The first word is relevant...... 'IF'. The rest is irrelevant because you have no evidence to back up your assumption. Again your choice of the word 'scare' is hihgly revealing about your true motivations for your stance.
Just compare Soviet style tower blocks to the leafy suburbs around London to see what authoritarian solutions lead to.
Another of your favourite red-herrings. You assume that any co-ordinated efforts to change our energy-intensive and unsustainable lifestyles necessarily involves 'authoritarian solution'. This is just complete nonsense and you should know it.
And compare the potentially permanently damaged industrial regions of China to the reclaimed coal spoil heaps of South Wales or the English Potteries where the first industrialisation occurred.
And of course the early stages of the industrial revolution in the West were a textbook example of clean and pollution free development.... You will find, I think, that the cleaning up of our environment was driven by the very regulation which you seem to detest.
We really do not need the panicky behaviour of environmentalism with its lack of belief in humanity's ability to progress in a positive direction.
Another Stephen soundbite that says everything, once again, about your true motivations here.
History has already proved them wrong in their pessimism time and time again.
It is fatal error to assume that you can extrapolate from the status quo indefinitely.
Free and prosperous peoples always do the right thing eventually. We and the planet are as one. We are part of Gaia. We can only be free and prosperous with cheap energy however derived.
Let me know when you find the magic pixie dust that will deliver us all cheap and plentiful energy. Better still try living in the real world and looking at the remaining finite reserves
Let Earth's people be free subject only to a minimal level of top down regulation to prevent a limited range of short term abuses of the environment.
A neat finish that encapsulates your mindset. Nothing to do with the science and threats of climate change and everything to do with your position on political and economic systems. As for preventing abuses of the environment, you are joking I hope or are you completely out of touch Stephen?