Steven Mosher
If all the past data was lost we would still have physics which tells us that adding GHGs leads to a warmer planet.
The real debate is over how much. energy focused away from that debate is a diversion.
Exactly.
That’s why all the fear mongering conjuring up two meter inundations of NYC, killer heat waves or other climate disasters are beside the point – but that does not stop the “consensus” crowd from using these arguments to sell their message of alarming AGW in order to justify remedial actions (i.e. direct or indirect carbon taxes).
I believe that our host’s approach is to get the discussion back to the basics:
We know the physics tell us that added CO2 should cause warming. We do NOT know how much (great “uncertainty”) of the past warming has been caused by natural factors and how much by human GHG emissions.
As a result, we have no notion of whether or not human-induced GH warming will represent a major inconvenience to mankind or not – but we do have indications that even in its worst incarnation, it will not represent an existential threat by the end of this century.
Until we have figured this out, it is premature to talk about remedial actions whose unintended consequences we also cannot predict.
Would you agree?
Max.