You seem to enjoy that patronizing tone. I get the feeling that your AGW denialism is based more on desire to look smarter than everyone else than it is on an impartial examination of the data.
It's mainly an awareness that we can't have an interesting conversation on the topic until you improve your knowledge. Any conversation until then will be me teaching, with you arguing all the way. That's not very fun for me, so instead I'll try to motive you to learn on your own.
When you're done, we can have an enjoyable conversation, and probably both learn.
On what basis do you think you're more knowledgeable? There were two issues, one I forget the exact issue which was just a dumb mistake on my part, but before that Amiga3D's initial statement had a flawed premise which I overlooked which led me to make an inaccurate statement (and led to my subsequent confusion).
Amiga said "I remember climate experts shouting back in the last millennium that if we didn't do radical change by 2000 it'd be too late to make a difference. Why does that target date keep moving?"
The flaw is that 2000 was probably the date to avoid significant AGW entirely, it's not too late to make a difference, it's just too late to miss it entirely. We can no longer avoid it so we have new rough deadlines we can try to hit to avoid some of the probable future consequences.
You can't give an exact date or number because both the action we take (how much we reduce CO2 and methane) and the results we get (heat, storms, droughts), even if they could be perfectly predicted are on a sliding scale. It looks like moving the goalposts because that's what we're doing, 200x is past, xxx PPM is past, we're going to get some global warming, so lets choose a new goal and try to accomplish that instead.
That's all the old 200x quotes really show.