Knowing what we know now, you are in Germany in 1938 with a pistol in your hand trained on Hitler. Do you shoot him? Most would say: “Yes, of course – it will save – literally – the lives of millions of innocents”.
Now it is 2017, and the scenario repeats with the Koch brothers, etc. Except this time, it is the lives of billions, not millions, of innocents whose lives are nearly certain to be lost, though it has not yet happened.
“… the ethical thing is to look at the claims, the data and then decide.”
Actually, the ethical thing is to read the data, not just look at it. The scale on the graphs that you seem to be interpreting as Fahrenheit is actually W/m^2.
This error suggests that your approach is “make a decision, look at the claims, and then twist the data to suit your decision”, more commonly known as “fire, point, aim”.
As for the Mearns article, his summary of the range of possible outcomes includes the most unlikely scenario (RCP2.5 – virtually impossible to meet at this time) and ignores the fact that even the middle range means significant changes to our environment.
In fact, RCP8.5 is the most likely scenario based on today’s trends. And if you don’t think that the mid- to upper ranges stated in Mearn’s summary are worrisome, then I do not understand how you can claim to follow the science.
It would be interesting for you to extrapolate the (compounding) 0.2W/m² per decade rate out to 2100 and how you conclude 0.25°F of radiative forcing, or if you care to reveal your measure of climate sensitivity (TCR), of climate warming. That way some body can check your math.
Woulda, shoulda, coulda are the roots of all personal suffering because they focus on what doesn’t exist to the detriment of what does exist.
Ethics 101 class:
Knowing what we know now, you are in Germany in 1938 with a pistol in your hand trained on Hitler. Do you shoot him? Most would say: “Yes, of course – it will save – literally – the lives of millions of innocents”.
Now it is 2017, and the scenario repeats with the Koch brothers, etc. Except this time, it is the lives of billions, not millions, of innocents whose lives are nearly certain to be lost, though it has not yet happened.
What is the ethical thing to do?
The ethical thing is the to look at the claims, look at the data and than decide. You have looked at the claims and refused to look at the data. Here is some you may find interesting. http://euanmearns.com/catastrophic-climate-change-a-reminder-of-what-the-ipcc-actually-said/
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/ is the actual warming from CO2, projecting that out to 2100 AD results in a increase of 0.25F.
“… the ethical thing is to look at the claims, the data and then decide.”
Actually, the ethical thing is to read the data, not just look at it. The scale on the graphs that you seem to be interpreting as Fahrenheit is actually W/m^2.
This error suggests that your approach is “make a decision, look at the claims, and then twist the data to suit your decision”, more commonly known as “fire, point, aim”.
As for the Mearns article, his summary of the range of possible outcomes includes the most unlikely scenario (RCP2.5 – virtually impossible to meet at this time) and ignores the fact that even the middle range means significant changes to our environment.
In fact, RCP8.5 is the most likely scenario based on today’s trends. And if you don’t think that the mid- to upper ranges stated in Mearn’s summary are worrisome, then I do not understand how you can claim to follow the science.
It would be interesting for you to extrapolate the (compounding) 0.2W/m² per decade rate out to 2100 and how you conclude 0.25°F of radiative forcing, or if you care to reveal your measure of climate sensitivity (TCR), of climate warming. That way some body can check your math.