As I said the models are merely tools to test our understanding and the major GCM's are doing pretty well. I see people make claims like like yours all the time but I've never seen any scientifically rigorous debunking of them.

And as I also said the real evidence is in the real world observations. Why don't you address that?

(BTW, don't expect a reply soon, I'm leaving for a 5 day whitewater rafting vacation in 20 minutes.)

why the Sun is such a lightweight in this regard but it's a good thing because otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Good luck. I think if you're young enough you'll find out how badly wrong you are.

So you don't care if it's going to cost you a lot more to let it happen as to do something about it?

I'm solidly on the Left and to me the only way to run elections are with paper ballots that are capable of being counted by hand if necessary.

Climate sensitivity is defined as the expected temperature rise for a doubling of CO2. But the way things are going now we won't stop at a doubling of CO2 so the difference between 1C and 4C is more a matter of time than any absolute limit on temperature rise.

Also I like how you guys always latch on to the bottom of the sensitivity range as if that's the only possible value. As I said in another place why aren't you as skeptical of 1C sensitivity as you are of 5C sensitivity? Time will tell but usually the middle of the range (around 3C in this case) is the most likely answer.

The real world evidence is not in the climate models. They are merely tools to test how well we understand the interactions between the different things that affect climate. You may think they don't do that well but so far the real world observations are still within the 95% confidence range of the climate model output.

Real world evidence is in the surface temperature measurements, the melting of ice, the rise of sea level (from both melting ice and thermal expansion). Real world evidence is in the changes in growing seasons and the ranges of plants and animals. Real world evidence is in the simple physical formula for the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature discovered by Svante Arrhenius over 100 years ago.

If the current El Nino continues through the end of the year 2015 or 2016 will likely set an unequivocal new global temperature record much like 1998 did. What will you have to say then?

I was all top 40 as a teenager but it was kind of a golden age during the heyday of the Beatles and Stones. Since then my taste has expanded and I appreciate just about any kind of music if it's well done. One thing that helped was going to concerts of big names. Van Cliburn came to the university I was attending and I went to the show just because of his name but he just blew me away with his virtuosity and that turned me on to a lot of classical. Same thing happened with jazz at a George Benson show and with Bill Monroe at a bluegrass show and BB King at a blues show and I could go on. A great musician is a great musician no matter what their genre. I've even heard a few rap/hip-hop songs I enjoyed.

Nowadays I mostly listen to a lot of folk/bluegrass/Americana with a healthy dose of classical and when I'm in the mood I'll tune into the local classic rock station which covers rock from the 1950s to 1980s. But what I seek out and appreciate the most is live concerts of nearly any genre with great musicians.

The Who were best appreciated live.

Dispute all the climate sensitivity estimations you want. At the rate we're going even the lowest estimations just mean it takes a few more decades to get there.

I'm against using a carbon tax to reduce income and sales taxes because if it works as we want it to after a few decades there will be little tax collected because no one is emitting carbon which means you have to increase them again (with all of the politics that involves). Instead what I favor is a dividend where the proceeds of the carbon tax are distributed back in equal shares to all legal residents of the country. That rewards those with a lower carbon footprint and penalizes those with a higher carbon footprint.

FTFY

I wish we were losing because that would mean anthropogenic global warming was not going to be a problem. But in the real world the evidence for AGW continues to pile up regardless of how much you convince yourself otherwise. It's not going to go way and you'll be living with it for the rest of your life.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick

Touche. Nevertheless the majority of scientific evidence continues to support my side of the issue.

No, all that is necessary is to relegate you to the same status as the chemtrail crowd or the moon landing hoax believers so no one pays any attention to you.