I too am a skeptic. I know that the CAGW concern is based on data that isn’t and models that don’t. I am appalled that the “creators” of the global surface temperature “records” believe they are the “real world” Rumpelstiltskin, capable of “spinning” bad data into an accurate temperature “record”. I am further appalled that they believe their talents exceed those of Rumpelstiltskin, in that they believe they can “spin” missing data into an accurate temperature “record”. I believe the status of current climate science is “Grimm”.

I am amazed that there is serious consideration of completely revising the global economic and energy systems, requiring an estimated investment of ~$150 trillion globally, based on the poor quality of the temperature data currently available and the massive uncertainty of the multiple models which currently function as the “prophets of doom”.

I view the CAGW issue as a four-legged stool:
Leg 1 – zero anthropogenic carbon emissions;
Leg 2 – zero animal husbandry;
Leg 3 – population controls;
Leg 4 – income and wealth redistribution; and,
Seat – global governance, obviously by the “smartest people in the room”, most of whom would be happy to self-identify, upon request.

I believe the ultimate end point is a global vegan commune. I expect that there might be a sign on the sign of the commune headquarters reading: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” (I suspect that George Orwell would be horrified to learn that supposedly intelligent humans had adopted Animal Farm as a “script”, rather than a warning.

1- The non agreement is even between IPCC models. There is also element of natural variability as 2C oscillations of global climate is quite normal and natural as we have seen over the last 8000 years. 200 years we were at the rock bottom with temperature in the last 8000 years. We haven’t exceeded amplitude of natural variability yet. Once it will be possible to grow crops in Greenland and reindeers reoccupy Arctic we’ll reach the top range of natural variability. We are not there yet. The warming even nearly stopped in the last decade. It might obviously begin to rise again.

2- The effect of CO2 is not the main driver for the climate warming. It is climate feedback which is supposed to fry us. Unfortunately, this feedback is close to impossible to predict. However, there are numerous indications that IPCC is on top of the range what is physically posible and quite a few NGO, lobbyists and activists are even beyond.

3- The plan pushed by quite a few alarmists is simple – destroy economy and reduce population.

4- It is no surprise that there will be people resisting plans to destroy economy and reduce population. Especially when you want to destroy their own economy and reduce their own population.

Based on the above, *** I HOPE *** that Doha will be another very expensive party, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”. The funny part is that IPCC wasn’t invited to Doha. It looks that even the politised and alarmist science is not welcomed at these parties.

But, if the alarmists are right and increasing CO2 concentrations will continue to warm the climate then it brings not only negatives but positives too. For example, we know that the warming is fastes in the high altitude of north hemisphere. It means that big parts of Canada and Siberia might become more hospitable for life. Some shore locations might have troubles to fight high seas but it depends entirely on their economics how successful they are. As we can see in Netherlands the population can fight back for centuries. Increased concentrations of CO2 might marginally decreased basidity of the oceans but most creatures are easily able to cope with anything likely for next centuries. On the other side the plants will clearly benefit when more plant food become available.
I might be wrong but we will see more in 50 or 100 years. The global temperature is rising steadily for last 150 years without any acceleration. If we don’t see any acceleration in next 50 years there is clearly little to be worried about. And the technology in 50years might be quite different from the current one. I’m sure that climate science will be substantially different.

A specific level of temperature anomaly increase could not be a goal anyway, because it cannot be controlled to. There is supposedly some relationship between global atmospheric concentrations of GHGs and global average temperature anomaly. Some specific global GHG concentration could be controlled to, by adopting a plan to reduce global GHG emissions to some level at some rate which would stabilize the global atmospheric GHG concentrations at levels consistent with a durable 2C anomaly.

There appear to be several problems with this scenario:
1- lack of agreement (consensus?) regarding the atmospheric concentration levels of GHGs which would assure that the global average anomaly would not exceed 2C;
2- lack of agreement (consensus?) regarding the global annual emissions rates for GHGs which would be consistent with a stable 2C anomaly;
3- any single plan capable of achieving the required global emissions rate reductions; and,
4- any willingness on the part of those nations which are still increasing their annual emissions to halt the increase, no less begin decreasing their emissions.

Based on the above, I believe Doha will be another very expensive party, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

The 2C is not a goal, it is only a wish. (“A goal without a plan is just a wish.”, Antoine de St. Exupery