Information Revolution — November 10, 2014
In answer to this question, one which science has so far failed to produce, here was my take on it.
AGW is based on shifting sands. The great majority, maybe 90%, is simply guesswork, and within a complex non-linear system, and worse still on a timescale beyond our lifetimes to discover.
Imagine an investment or building project where the results or returns were dependent on the market (ie not fixed) and simply offered a variable rate interest which may mature when you’re 90 or 160 and the rate could be between 1 and 6%, with the likeliest results in the middle.
Then 20 years later the actual market had fallen so low that the figure was just about to fall below the minimum point for cashing out at any moment in time.
Back to the science, the IPCC have set the very wide goalposts but narrowed down the bullseye at 2C for a doubling of CO2. That rose from 260ppm in 1850 to 400 or so in 2014, and the average rise when divided among decades is 0.05C. However you slice it, like Dana Nuccitelli, who falsely only used the last few decades where CO2 had risen more and extrapolated from that, despite it stopping rising anyway, when you put the slices back in the cake it has responded with a 0.8C rise after a 50% increase of CO2, much like the bare lab figure plus a little rise mainly natural. (Continue reading here….)