Dan,
You wrote –
“Thus exact determination of temperatures and CO2 level are not needed. It is not necessary to know the “energy content of the Earth system”. Rough assessments of average global temperature and atmospheric CO2 level, irrespective of how determined, are all that are needed and there are plenty of them in the literature. It might all be in understanding the ‘computational mandate’.”
I’m a bit of a fan of theory backed up by experiment.
The fact that there are plenty of “rough assessments” in the “literature” leaves me less than convinced that the alleged “climate scientists” are any other than fools or frauds.
You may be right. Maybe it all comes down to the ‘computational mandate’, which sounds about as useful and well defined as the Warmist’s “global average surface temperature”, capable of measurement to 0.01 C, as I understand it.
I’m guessing you can’t define the ‘computational mandate’. It sounds like a wondrous Warmist device to avoid inconvenient facts, or even a lack thereof!