BBC climate editor whose sister is an Insulate Britain fanatic made false claims on global warming

[longview]

Which is not so significant as to change the IPCC position that it is "extremely likely" (95% to100% degree of certainty) human activity is the major cause of GW. Nor is anything you've said, by itself or all put together.

I am not arguing that the statement "human activity is the major cause of GW" is not true!
I am saying that the IPCC's statement about a doubling of the CO2 level causing warming of 3°C,
is based on a flawed methodology of ECS, where the CO2 level is simulated to double abruptly!
when the IPCC uses more realistic simulations like TCR and TCRE (1% annual concentration increases),
the sensitivity to 2XCO2 is much lower, between 0.82C and 1.8°C.

 

[bluesmoke]

No it strange that you stick with an appeal to authority, even when that authority
presents a climate sensitivity much lower than their concluded sensitivity.
The difference between the methodologies (TCRE and ECS), is that TCRE more
closely resembles how Human emissions are actually happening.

Either way, human emissions are at an extremely high level and have been increasing rapidly in recent history. Again, what you say is of no significance. AGW is a genuine threat to human life and survival.

 

[longview]

Either way, human emissions are at an extremely high level and have been increasing rapidly in recent history. Again, what you say is of no significance. AGW is a genuine threat to human life and survival.

Actually CO2 emissions are fairly stable, increasing at an average of 2.74 ppm per year since about 2000.
A low climate sensitivity is VERY significant, because those predictions of bad outcomes, are based on a combination
of high sensitivity and unlikely future emissions scenarios.
I challenge you to cite a peer reviewed study, that shows "AGW is a genuine threat to human life and survival."?

 

[bluesmoke]

It took you since July 17 to come up with that?
I had to go back and see what we were discussing.
I do not have a theory that the IPCC lists two CO2 sensitivity levels for two methodologies,
They are stated in the IPCC AR6 SPM.


Again if you think I am incorrect, then point out where my error is.

I didn't even read your post until the time of my reply.

You've never been incorrect? Nor admitted so?

 

[longview]

I didn't even read your post until the time of my reply.

You've never been incorrect? Nor admitted so?

Actually, when I make a mistake, and I do sometimes, I say so.
But it is not my theory that the IPCC has two different methodologies to calculate the climate's sensitivity to added CO2.
They use both ECS and TCRE, but only report the doubling sensitivity of ECS.

 

[longview]

I didn't even read your post until the time of my reply.

You've never been incorrect? Nor admitted so?

BTW, you did not answer the question in post#153 from Friday,
"I challenge you to cite a peer reviewed study, that shows "AGW is a genuine threat to human life and survival."?"