Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
No. of Recommendations: 4

Your quibble does not alter my point - the debate turns not on the issue of whether CO2 warms but on the amount of warming (which is to say, sensitivity).

Since the bulk of evaluations are coming back around 3 or a tad less...I'd go with 2.7-3.9 at this point and not put much weight on the outliers. .
Er, no.
The bulk of the IPCC evaluations do. IPCC has repeatedly overstated their case and seems to be doubling down. Those "outliers" you are ignoring are their most recent revisions.

even at the low end and less - 2.5 degrees sensitivity, we're in deep poo
Which, of course, is not the low end.
Most estimates put the transient climate response at about 1.5°C, with a range of 1-2°C. It is unclear to me why this would not be the low end for estimating equilibrium climate sensitivity. With luck, Loren or DrBob will explain this to me.

This is where the risk management comes in
Ah yes - post-normal science, which is to say the politicization of science and the whole reason skeptics even bother with the alarmists.

I don't bother responding to Ajax anymore here.
You may have noticed I tend to treat you the same way.
This post is an exception since you appear to have sincerely attempted to state a rational position as opposed to ranting mindlessly. I'd like to encourage you to continue down that path. ;)
Print the post  


What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.