The extent of illogicality and contradiction that can co-exist in a the minds of mainstream climateers is always quite amazing..
“…one would think that the risk of substantial warming entails a substantial risk that is worth hedging against….”
a) Only if the risks outweigh the benefits. But the world is actually greening due to the warming (despite any deforestation) and there are substantially bigger risks in swapping cheap, reliable energy with expensive intermittent energy.
b) “uncertainty in itself is not a reason for inaction”
Since the mode (most probable value) is much closer to 1.5 than 4.5 and since the sensitivity is continually dropping then yes it is a very good reason not to act until we can actually predict something correctly!
“…when someone advocates for a value lower than that, they have some explaining to do as to why such large temperature swings occurred in the (deep) past.”
Classic circular reasoning! CO2 is assumed to be a climate driver because there were otherwise inexplicable heating events BUT they just ignore the cooling events that cannot be explained by CO2. If it isn’t needed for the cooling then it isn’t needed for the heating either! It is more scientifically correct to conclude that past events are nothing to do with CO2 at all.
“..it is well established that warming since 1950 is predominantly anthropogenic”
This is is only a model-derived assertion based on an assumption of declining natural variability, that was utterly refuted when the models were found to have too little natural variation. Assign more dominance to natural variation and there is no need for manmade CO2 to fill any artificial gap between reality and nature.
“this buys us only a decade of extra time ”
Only if you assume that natural variation goes away again after having dominated already the last 150 years – which is a plainly dumb assumption.
“..something that hundreds of thousands of years of paleoclimate records suggest is false”
‘Suggest’ is a typical weasel word. The records suggest rather more that nature can vary all by itself so todays minor warming of 0.6K/century is nothing unnatural or anything to be concerned about.
“The risks of far greater climate sensitivity can’t simply be discounted or dismissed.”
But by all means lets ignore the far more certain risks of restricting fossil fuel use which we absolutely know will cause much pain!
“..her consulting business serves fossil fuel companies”
Let the one that doesn’t use fossil fuels cast the first stone. The hypocrisy is stunning. Yes it might be wonderful if fossil fuels were easily replaced but how many people have to die before the blowhards realize it isn’t so easy as they pretend!
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ccffdd&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
