"Ergo, at relatively low [CO2] the gradient of the logarithmic function that you think is minor is in fact major, and near linear."

To be clear, it does NOT approach the asymptote that you think or infer.

Bonmot, you're trying to fit me up. I didn't say that CO2 was saturated, just that most of the warming that could be due to CO2 has already occurred. Not sure what your point about linear is because we are not at "relatively low" levels of CO2. But if you look only at a segment of the curve it will probably look linear, if you only look at a smal enough segment.

Using Venus as a comparison is ridiculous. It has an atmospheric pressure about 90 times earth's which changes the absorption behaviour somewhat.

James, "hide the decline" did in fact mean to hide the temperature decline. They were using proxies to gauge temperature and the proxies, after showing temperature the way they wanted it pre the 1960s started declining at a time thermometers said it should be increasing. So they just spliced the thermometer temperatures onto the proxy temperatrues and voila.

Of course what this says is that the proxy was entirely unsuitable because it didn't agree with reality.

The inquiries into the climate gate emails were whitewashes. They didn't look at the science, and mostly just interviewed the perpetrators.

Amongst their non-scientific crimes were trying to get people sacked who published scientific papers disagreeing with them.

It is quite a disgraceful event, and attitudes to it are a good touchstone of whether people actually care about the issues or are just barracking for global warming.

Oh, and I forgot Bonmot. You're the only one who thinks that regional forecasts are any good. The IPCC warns against them, and their unreliability is also noted in the latest Royal Society statement on climate change.

There are so many unknowns that increased computer power won't sort the problem out.

GrahamY "It is quite a disgraceful event, and attitudes to it are a good touchstone of whether people actually care about the issues or are just barracking for global warming."

Well said, my sentiments exactly - and anyone who claims the "reviews" were a model of probity is kidding themselves. Much the same as the reviews of the hockey-stick guy, who is extremely litigious is protecting his fiefdom.

When you have universities or old boys reviewing their mates, you know how it will come out, so very Yes, Prime Minister.

I agree with Amicus on this as well, that a lot of scientists are horrified by what came out of CRU in the climategate emails - however they got out, it was a good thing to show the peer review process is corrupt and cannot be relied upon, this had been used for years against skeptics and is now shown in climate science to be a tool for suppressing information.

Everyone,

This thread is getting somewhat heated. While there are still points to address, do we all want to calm down and walk away before it gets too far?

james .. clearly you are new to OLO Climate discussions, this is still very mild, no one has been scolded yet or sent to purgatory.

but to head back to the article in question, the whole per capita debate is a furphy, when Australia has 20 million (or thereabouts) people and we thrash ourselves with the bushes while China has 1.2+ Billion and finger wags at us.

Our emissions for the next 100 years, would probably not equal their emissions for the next week.(they already have how many coal powered power stations?)

We are but an ant, trying to dance with elephants, with the obvious consequences - no one notices us, we will self inflict damage, no one will care.

That's us Australia, big hat, no horse.