tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post8981979392878766384..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Besieged deniers Anthony Watts and Barry Woods engage in wishful thinking @wattsupwiththat ...Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52725531258173402782014-02-09T02:45:08.409+11:002014-02-09T02:45:08.409+11:00@Grieg, "A large number of bloggers here assu...@Grieg, "A large number of bloggers here assume that the only "likely" climate scenarios are catastrophic. " Nope, not at all. People here accept the mid-range of ECS with the uncertainties as detailed in the IPCC. Mid-range ECS *is* catastrophic, *if* no action is taken to curb emissions. Catastrophists would only look at worst-case predictions based on RCP8.5, which are obviously not outside the range of possible outcomes.PLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40876460848976695882014-02-08T16:52:22.433+11:002014-02-08T16:52:22.433+11:00Oh, and for the record, not "everyone" i...Oh, and for the record, <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/data/how-much-coal-wind-and-solar-was-built-europe-last-year-new-data" rel="nofollow">not "everyone"</a> is building more coal plants than renewables. From a report by the European Wind Energy Association <a href="javascript:void(0);" rel="nofollow">via Greenpeace</a>:<br /><br /><i>Wind and solar power accounted for 63% of new capacity added to the European grid last year whilst coal capacity fell - according to new data from the European Wind Energy Association.</i>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75973454719751658722014-02-08T12:27:33.907+11:002014-02-08T12:27:33.907+11:00Thanks, Mike. That was a weird thing for Mike Hul...Thanks, Mike. That was a weird thing for Mike Hulme and The Conversation to write. It could mean that Mike Hulme's own words didn't reflect his views or it could mean that he changed his views in two days and/or it could mean that Rob H's information was correct and the C's editors took some liberties. Yet if that were the case Rob's source was probably also correct that Mike Hulme approved the original edits.<br /><br />Mike Hulme's thinking is still sloppy. The only controversy about the findings of Cook13 is the false controversy generated by the denialati.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37380000342843236882014-02-08T10:52:06.428+11:002014-02-08T10:52:06.428+11:00The word "infamous" has now been removed...The word "infamous" has now been removed from the article with a note at the bottom stating "This article has been updated to better reflect the views of the author.<br /><br />Hulme himself added the comment<br />"Leopard - no I haven't changed my view in any significant way, but my essay on The Conversation was not about the Cook et al. study - I simply used the 97.1% number to illustrate my argument. It is perhaps a 'controversial' study, but not an 'infamous' one."<br />http://theconversation.com/science-cant-settle-what-should-be-done-about-climate-change-22727#comment_306771<br /><br /><br /><br />MikeHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36632839751720051812014-02-08T10:36:19.862+11:002014-02-08T10:36:19.862+11:00Grieg, if you spent more time reading and less tim...Grieg, if you spent more time reading and less time writing you might learn something. You ask if I read the Moore article. I did, and I even wrote a blog article about it. The number of references has nothing to do with whether an article is good or bad or right or wrong. (The NIPCC has oodles of references too and it's almost as silly as the Moore article.)<br /><br />http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/what-difference-19-years-makes.html<br /><br />I'm not going to bother with most of your comment. By now readers will have learnt that you spout a lot of nonsense, have no capacity for logic or fact-checking and your hobby is writing long boring comments about the fact that you reject science. <br /><br />I'll just make one more observation because to my way of thinking this is why a lot of deniers like yourself can't accept climate science. You wrote:<br /><br /><i>If we followed your “worst case scenario” approach (and that of Stern, Garnaut, etc) you wouldn’t get out of bed in the morning. </i><br /><br />Neither my approach nor that or Nicholas Stern and Ross Garnaut are "worse case scenario". Not by a long shot. The fact that you wouldn't get out of bed in the morning if you accepted the science that Garnaut and Stern used as a basis for their reviews says a lot about you. The fact that you'd stay in bed rather than have Australia bring in a modest carbon price (which is the bottom line of the Garnaut review) or adopt the Stern review recommendations, tells us even more about you and your ideology. You'd rather not get out of bed ever again than use a relatively mild market mechanism to shift to clean energy.<br /><br />I've written before about what I call "scaredy cat" deniers. People who freeze when they come across big problems. (Yes, I've had big problems and frozen, temporarily. I'm not unique in that regard.) However, as a civilisation we cannot afford to stay in bed rather than deal with the big problems of the world.<br /><br />The next decade we will have decided as a civilisation whether we want to make it easy or hard for ourselves. The signs are, as you point out, that we place no value on the future. Yet there are also signs that we do. You are fighting to resist a clean energy world and I'm urging people to act for the future of humanity. <br /><br />Whether you will have your Pyrrhic victory or whether our future will "win" only time will tell.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.google.com.au/search?q=scaredy+cat+site%3A.hotwhopper.com&rlz=1C1CHMD_enAU558AU558&oq=scaredy+cat+site%3A.hotwhopper.com&aqs=chrome..69i57.8225j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8" rel="nofollow">Here are some articles I've written</a> on the "scaredy cat" aspect of science rejection:<br /><br />Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22068089269692888882014-02-08T08:16:25.100+11:002014-02-08T08:16:25.100+11:00Sou February 7, 2014 at 10:22 AM writes
governme...Sou February 7, 2014 at 10:22 AM writes<br /><br /><i> governments and policy developers have access to lots of people who have expertise in these areas, so they have no excuse. </i><br /><br />So why is everyone building more coal plants? Maybe they know something you don’t?<br /><br /><i> The difference between Moore and all the other economists is that Moore rejects the science, makes up stuff and says "do nothing" at best or "bring it on". </i><br /><br />Did you read the Moore article? It makes 222 references, mostly to valid peer reviewed scientific studies. My criticism of Moore is that like Stern and Garnaut, he draws conclusions on the future impacts based on optimistic projections, without recognising that the rate of future warming is unknown.<br /><br /><i> I don't know why you say we shouldn't try to predict the future. Everyone does that every minute they are awake. … weighing up consequences of different futures and taking action. </i><br /><br />If we followed your “worst case scenario” approach (and that of Stern, Garnaut, etc) you wouldn’t get out of bed in the morning. <br /><br /><i> The costs and benefits of different strategies are well enough worked out for decision-making. </i><br /><br />Really? The challenge then is for you to explain why the well informed governments of this world continue to expand fossil fuel use, renewables still produce a fraction of capacity, with projected rate of CO2 emission s to increase significantly over the next few decades. Is it really all the fault of bloggers at WUWT?<br /><br /><i> The hurdles are ideology, politics, diplomacy</i><br /><br />And back to the subject of this thread, Hulme has made a contribution on how we might address this. Do you agree with his suggestions or not?<br /><br />PL February 7, 2014 at 10:25 AM writes: <br /><br /><i> a large number of bloggers like to open up the range of "likely" climate scenarios in only one direction (downwards), then claim that no action is justified. </i><br /><br />A large number of bloggers here assume that the only "likely" climate scenarios are catastrophic. A more balanced view is to acknowledge that we don’t yet know what the rate of future warming will be.<br /><br />Bernard J. February 7, 2014 at 10:31 AM wrote:<br /><br /><i> strategies to mitigate against global warming would also increase the resilience and profitability of human economies over the coming centuries. </i><br /><br /><a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB125193815050081615" rel="nofollow">Are your sure? </a> Check the projections on energy technology – the next century is all about coal and gas, and it is economics (read: resilience and profitability of human economies) that is driving this.<br /><br />Dave February 7, 2014 at 11:28 AM wrote:<br /><br /><i> those who currently profit from the slow destruction of the planet are engaged in a massive PR and FUD campaign, peddling lies and misinformation. </i><br /><br />Of course, the fossil fuel companies lobby. And there are those on the other side of the argument with ideological agendas, they too are “peddling lies and misinformation”. Don’t believe the hype.<br /><br /><i> You say it is not possible to predict the future, but you are wrong. </i><br /><br />Really? Think about what you are saying here, Dave. <br /><br /><i> seriously disrupt humanity 3 or 4 times over, </i><br /><br />Disrupt … 3 or 4 times over …. And you want to lecture me on quantification?<br /><br /><i>AGW is already having a serious impact on the economy … there are many irreversable tipping points that await us</i><br /><br />Is there any evidence for these claims in the peer reviewed literature? (Note: I have a few choice quotes from the IPCC AR5 and SREX that prove you wrong)<br />Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23063201267249351702014-02-08T03:03:15.751+11:002014-02-08T03:03:15.751+11:00The "debate" will only move on when deni...The "debate" will only move on when deniers stop trying - as you are doing - to subvert the public and political discourse with pseudo-science and misinformation. You should not have crowed so loudly about your faith in such as Andrew Neal to distort the truth. That was foolish Barry. But a thousand thanks, all the same. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9144772801166173782014-02-08T02:56:29.691+11:002014-02-08T02:56:29.691+11:00And to be clear, whilst I have criticized Mike Hul...And to be clear, whilst I have criticized Mike Hulme in the past, for his past 'actions' it is easy to judge with hindsight. Prof Mike Hulme clearly says the debate has moved on since 2009, and appears to be asking the right questions.Barry Woodshttp://www.unsettledclimate.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51087117784697085422014-02-08T02:48:44.044+11:002014-02-08T02:48:44.044+11:00That would be sanity, which is homogeneous. That would be sanity, which is homogeneous. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85222098040203303012014-02-08T02:45:07.775+11:002014-02-08T02:45:07.775+11:00Barry, what you are doing is activism, to put it p...Barry, what you are doing is activism, to put it politely:<br /><br /><i>So I very much doubt if Davey or any other Minister will EVER cite Cook again in a BBC interview, as BBC's Andrew Neal I'm sure is now aware of Prof Mike Hulme's thoughts, and will challenge the politician that cites Cook et al, with Prof Mike Hulme's words - 'Poorly conceived, designed and executed' and 'hopelessly confused' and largely irrelevant' </i><br /><br />Hulme has become increasingly confused and irrelevant, except to (in)activists such as yourself and your pals at WUWT, BH etc. <br /><br /><i>who is right/wrong about Cook becomes irrelevant, when activist react like this against the climate science establishment scientists. that is more interesting</i><br /><br />Cobblers. You have expended huge efforts elsewhere and enough here banging the Hulme-says-Cook-crap drum. Your self-contradictions are absurd. If you think clumsy and muddled rhetoric like this will work on me you are mistaken. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33718464711699722932014-02-08T02:42:29.119+11:002014-02-08T02:42:29.119+11:00That's just your confirmation bias showing, Ba...That's just your confirmation bias showing, Barry.<br /><br />If you read my comments again you will see that what I wrote was:<br /><br /><i>Mike Hulme might be of that type or he could be an ideological denier who can't quite bring himself to reject the science outright (going by a couple of comments and references by others in this thread).</i><br /><br />He doesn't reject the science outright, but he writes weird stuff like suggesting it's okay for UK politicians to invite Richard Lindzen and Donna Laframboise to appear before them so as to deny science. While at the same time he wrote that it's time to move onto discussing what to do about global warming and stop denying the science. His article showed confused thinking.<br /><br />You'll also have noticed that I made it quite clear that I was speculating based on my scant knowledge of (or interest in) the chap, likening his behaviour to my observations of not dissimilar behaviour by a couple of other UK scientists. <br /><br />It's you who are reading much more into my generalised and speculative comments, which you pushed for, by the way, than they warrant.<br /><br />I notice from when I wander around the traps that you have a habit of doing that sort of thing.<br />Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66000490351286449772014-02-08T02:23:25.226+11:002014-02-08T02:23:25.226+11:00BBD my main point is that someone like Sou could t...BBD my main point is that someone like Sou could think of Mike Hulme as some type of 'denier' rejecting science, was really fascinating. especially as Sou appears to know very little about him...<br /><br />who is right/wrong about Cook becomes irrelevant, when activist react like this against the climate science establishment scientists. that is more interestingBarry Woodshttp://www.unsettledclimate.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25921846481089330902014-02-08T02:04:08.126+11:002014-02-08T02:04:08.126+11:00Don't know about "interesting".
A r...Don't know about "interesting".<br /><br />A racing certainty I would have thought.Foxgoosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27768693433133692562014-02-08T01:46:15.717+11:002014-02-08T01:46:15.717+11:00It's interesting that the crowd over at Anders...It's interesting that the crowd over at Anders blog have much the same take as I and others here do about Mike Hulme's article at the Conversation.<br /><br />http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/science-and-policy-2/<br /><br />Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15074986064963375292014-02-08T01:43:09.935+11:002014-02-08T01:43:09.935+11:00And approved subsequently by Mike Hulme.And approved subsequently by Mike Hulme.BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79028093897899845652014-02-08T01:27:19.137+11:002014-02-08T01:27:19.137+11:00and Andrew Neal had said it had been debunked (by ...<i>and Andrew Neal had said it had been debunked (by Tol) </i><br /><br />Except Tol *didn't* "debunk" Cook13. This is just a fake-sceptic lie. Tol's reply was rejected by the journal because it was incorrect. So now we see Neal repeating fake-sceptic misinformation <i>on the record</i> instead of doing his job properly. This is how the fake sceptics are trying to subvert public and political discourse in the UK. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24889054132129156872014-02-08T01:20:31.405+11:002014-02-08T01:20:31.405+11:00Looks like you can all stop parsing what Mike Hulm...Looks like you can all stop parsing what Mike Hulme really thought.<br /><br /><br />Rob Painting of the SkS Treehouse Club and "97% Paper" author has just revealed, on the ATTP blog, that an anonymous source has secretly confided in him - "that the word “infamous” used to describe our (Cook [2013]) paper was actually inserted by staff at The Conversation".<br /><br />And they call sceptics conspiracy theorists!<br /><br />http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/science-and-policy-2/#comment-14209Foxgoosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-80579819368808910832014-02-08T01:19:36.851+11:002014-02-08T01:19:36.851+11:00So now you see how the deniers are trying to fuck ...So now you see how the deniers are trying to fuck up public discourse in the UK:<br /><br /><i>So I very much doubt if Davey or any other Minister will EVER cite Cook again in a BBC interview, as BBC's Andrew Neal I'm sure is now aware of Prof Mike Hulme's thoughts, and will challenge the politician that cites Cook et al, with Prof Mike Hulme's words - 'Poorly conceived, designed and executed' and 'hopelessly confused' and largely irrelevant' </i><br /><br />Fascinating. Take Mike Hulme's confused, incorrect position on Cook13 and misrepresent it as the final word on a paper that has effortlessly withstood the combined shit-flinging of the denialist community the world over. <br /><br />Non-UK residents do note that Andrew Neal is a right-wing pundit and denier with real form for being loudly and publicly wrong about climate change. He is not, however, capable of single-handedly determining the tenor of public and political discourse in this country. That would be Barry getting rather carried away with himself. <br /><br />I further think you are over-stating the value of Hulme as a game-changing card, Barry, but then you never were very smart. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30435957431283780262014-02-08T00:42:46.295+11:002014-02-08T00:42:46.295+11:00fair enough Sou. maybe it was inane..
but I found...fair enough Sou. maybe it was inane..<br /><br />but I found your think about Hulme surprising, which why I asked if you knew much about the person (Hulme) you were equating as an 'ideological denier' and en verge of 'rejecting science..<br /><br />This id perhaps how some 'sceptics' see Mike Hulme:<br /><br />As founding director of the Tyndall Climate Change Centre (the most activist UK group), for example, he invited Greenpeace's legend Bill Hare onto the advisory board, he funded CMEP to work with the media to keep 'sceptics' off the airways..<br /><br />he organised, the dare I say it 'infamous' - Invitation To influence Kyoto - statement, to be signed by climate scientist, (working with NGO's like Greenpeace to promote it) to lobby to the worlds politicians at the Kyoto summit, an action was met with a damming response from Tom Wigley for his activism. <br /><br />He was at the BBC internal meeting (the BBC fought to keep those who attended out of the public domain) that the BBC quote to say based on that meeting of experts we no longer have to be balance about climate, because of the climate consensus is clear.. Tyndall Centre (under Mike Hulme funded the group - CMEP/IBT that organised those meetings)<br /><br />so if climate activist like yourself, know so little and so easily and quickly rush to judge others as potential 'ideological deniers' and wanting to 'reject science', who want to cosy up to 'deniers' - well I find that fascinating.<br /><br />Barry Woodshttp://www.unsettledclimate.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11512634317951884142014-02-07T23:52:03.754+11:002014-02-07T23:52:03.754+11:00On a scale of the potential influence and impact o...<i>On a scale of the potential influence and impact of 'deniers'/'sceptics'/'heretics', where would Watts, Montford, myself, Ben Pile and Hulme sit?</i><br /><br />That's got to be one of the most inane questions I've ever been asked in my life. And I'm no spring chicken.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57931226583764322912014-02-07T23:33:07.816+11:002014-02-07T23:33:07.816+11:00To be clear do you really think Hulme is an '...To be clear do you really think Hulme is an 'ideological denier' not quite 'rejecting the science' or a heretic like Curry, without knowing much about him or his roles and actions.<br /><br />As he is an establishment scientist, would you consider him as having more potentially more influence, or more damaging to 'the science', than someone like Watts, or myself or Andrew Montford. <br /><br />On a scale of the potential influence and impact of 'deniers'/'sceptics'/'heretics', where would Watts, Montford, myself, Ben Pile and Hulme sit?<br /><br />If you recall, I said Prof Mike Hulme's opinion on Cook et al might be 'noticed' (I meant by the establishment) vs myself, Watts, PIle, Montford dismissing the Cook paper. Ed Davey minister of State and his department, would dismiss sceptic blogs out of hand, but not Prof Mike Hulme thoughts on Cook et al. <br /><br />So I very much doubt if Davey or any other Minister will EVER cite Cook again in a BBC interview, as BBC's Andrew Neal I'm sure is now aware of Prof Mike Hulme's thoughts, and will challenge the politician that cites Cook et al, with Prof Mike Hulme's words - 'Poorly conceived, designed and executed' and 'hopelessly confused' and largely irrelevant' <br /><br />So Prof Mike Hulme's potential influence and potential impact on the Cook paper amongst the political UK establishment is, I think reasonable to assume, of much more likely influence than ANY sceptical blogger.<br /><br />so rather than Prof Mike Hulme having little influence as you suggest, I think his influence may be much,much more significant, than any sceptical blogger (ref Cook et al, and his other thinking) which is why perhaps some sceptic blogs are pointing his thoughts out, with a little glee.Barry Woodshttp://www.unsettledclimate.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71078453127238256612014-02-07T23:02:18.328+11:002014-02-07T23:02:18.328+11:00No I don't and nor do I care. Poring through ...No I don't and nor do I care. Poring through stolen personal emails is equivalent to being a peeping Tom. No - it's more unsavoury than that. "Perving" says a lot about the perver(t) and nothing about the people who were having a private dialogue.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-34445412816330167832014-02-07T22:52:00.196+11:002014-02-07T22:52:00.196+11:00well - that' was enlightening... thank you.
do...well - that' was enlightening... thank you.<br />do you know what the 'sceptics' thought about Mike Hulme's role in climategate emails?<br />What do you think most 'sceptics' would think about him <br />(fyi - I've seen a lot of criticism and have criticised myself)Barry Woodshttp://www.unsettledclimate.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63524418534468572242014-02-07T22:31:40.478+11:002014-02-07T22:31:40.478+11:00Barry, "dimly aware" is a colloquial exp...Barry, "dimly aware" is a colloquial expression here in Australia meaning - "I have a vague recollection of reading something about that somewhere some time ago" or similar.<br /><br />As for my opinion of him, I know little about him other than his brief bio, the above article, what others have added here and my "dim recollection" of him writing silly stuff about the Cook paper.<br /><br />There are a few climate folk in the UK who cosy up to deniers and give them a free pass, even though they understand the science. It seems unique to the UK, hence my speculation about it being for social reasons not scientific reasons. Mike Hulme might be of that type or he could be an ideological denier who can't quite bring himself to reject the science outright (going by a couple of comments and references by others in this thread). <br /><br />The UK lot are are different to Judith Curry. She's a Lindzen in the making.<br /><br />Mike Hulme doesn't interest me a great deal though. While he's held some decent jobs, given his expressed views I doubt he's likely to have any lasting influence. Too vacillatory. Too wimpish. And demonstrably naive/simplistic when writing outside his area of expertise.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73325218043724434862014-02-07T22:27:26.257+11:002014-02-07T22:27:26.257+11:00Greig is both logically and scientifically challen...Greig is both logically and scientifically challenged. A classic Dunning Kruger case.<br /><br />"a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate"<br /><br />Judging by his comment below (from a previous blog):<br /><br />"I wonder if a decade ago you would have argued that stomach ulcers are caused by stress (because what else could be the cause?)"<br /><br />He subscribes to the logically fallacious argument that just because the scientific consensus has been (very occasionally), wrong in the past (the old Galileo/Einstein analogy), that it is therefore wrong now. This is like saying, "Jane is a woman, Jane has red hair, therefore all women have red hair". He doesn't even realise that you can't make an argument like this in educated company and get away with it.<br /><br />Then the other point that he keeps banging on about, regarding Paleo reconstructions of climate sensitivity and CO2 feedbacks not being relevant to the situation today (again from a previous blog):<br /><br />"You are also assuming those feedbacks apply exactly the same in both cases, when we are talking about very different atmospheric and terrestrial conditions in each case."<br /><br />His understanding of Physics is so weak that he doesn't realise that it doesn't matter a rat's rectum how CO2 gets into the atmosphere, once it's there, it will have exactly the same effect in terms of trapping heat and on water vapour. So yes, it is valid to estimate climate sensitivity from ancient climates, and that informs our best estimate of about 3 degrees per doubling of CO2. <br /><br />So yes, it is possible to quantify the future risks of Climate change, and it is our duty to the next generation to do so. If anything, the IPCC projections are on the conservative side, and biased on the low side, so not at all "alarmist". Debunkernoreply@blogger.com