Mhaze,

"the issue I raised that you sought to disavow was that there is no consensus that the future temperatures will be dangerous or catastrophic."

D'uh! We've already had this conversation in one respect, and that was about your stubborn insistence that there was vagueness about extreme weather events. Your dreadful example of cherrypicking the IPCC in that regard still stands as a record of the intellectual dishonesty of denialists.

BTW, I'm glad you accept 'climate sensitivity' is a thing. The vague way you were fluffing about a 2 degree rise a few posts back had me a little alarmed.

Hansen has a lifetime experience measuring climate change. Do you?

Every National Academy of Science on the planet has signed on to CAGW, and together deliver centuries and centuries of scientific experience.

Here are some pertinent points EVERY National Academy of Science has signed on to:-

>>>Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8]

Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8]

Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]

The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]
The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]<<<

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

But there's no scientific consensus about the risks. Not at all! ;-)

Hi Mhaze:

>>>A large fraction of species faces increased extinction risk due to climate change during and beyond the 21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors (high confidence). Most plant species cannot naturally shift their geographical ranges sufficiently fast to keep up with current and high projected rates of climate change in most landscapes; most small mammals and freshwater molluscs will not be able to keep up at the rates projected under RCP4.5 and above in flat landscapes in this century (high confidence). Future risk is indicated to be high by the observation that natural global climate change at rates lower than current anthropogenic climate change caused significant ecosystem shifts and species extinctions during the past millions of years. Marine organisms will face progressively lower oxygen levels and high rates and magnitudes of ocean acidification (high confidence), with associated risks exacerbated by rising ocean temperature extremes (medium confidence). Coral reefs and polar ecosystems are highly vulnerable. Coastal systems and low-lying areas are at risk from sea level rise, which will continue for centuries even if the global mean temperature is stabilized (high confidence). {2.3, 2.4, Figure 2.5}

Climate change is projected to undermine food security (Figure SPM.9). Due to projected climate change by the mid-21st century and beyond, global marine species redistribution and marine biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity and other ecosystem services (high confidence). For wheat, rice and maize in tropical and temperate regions, climate change without adaptation is projected to negatively impact production for local temperature increases of 2°C or more above late 20th century levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). Global temperature increases of ~4°C or more13 above late 20th century levels, combined with increasing food demand, would pose large risks to food security globally (high confidence). Climate change is projected to reduce renewable surface water and groundwater resources in most dry subtropical regions (robust evidence, high agreement), intensifying competition for water among sectors (limited evidence, medium agreement). {2.3.1, 2.3.2}<<<
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
Clickable link:
http://tinyurl.com/pahrayn

oh dear, Max. You're loosing it again.

Just like you did in that earlier thread that you now, surprisingly, refer to. The thread where you were so comprehensively shown to be a mere shrill that you were reduced to ad homs like flat-earther and moon-landing denier when all your other assertions were shown to be baseless. The thread where you were reduced to essentially saying that when the IPCC put things in their report you didn't want to be true, they didn't really mean it. I'm sure it gives you comfort to misremember your humiliation in that thread and I'll leave you to wallow in that comfortable falsehood.

"BTW, I'm glad you accept 'climate sensitivity' is a thing. The vague way you were fluffing about a 2 degree rise a few posts back had me a little alarmed."

Actually you're a lot alarmed, without too much actual thought or evidence. Yes, I know climate sensitivity is a thing and I, unlike you, know what that thing is. Glad to be of help in your education on that tidbit.

Now you're relying on wikipedia to prove what you can't prove from the science ie that there is empirical evidence and a scientific consensus that a 2c warming will be catastrophic. Wikipedia? Really?

Ever heard of William Connolley? Of course not. He wouldn't have come up in your approved reading list. I'll leave you to research him and why you should ignore wikipedia in climate issues but you could start here:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/lachlan-markay/2010/10/21/wikipedia-bans-radical-global-warming-propagandist-editing-all

Mhaze,
In a perfect storm of denialism you ignore the second IPCC post entirely, and are reduced to childishly putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "I hate wikipedia because some people abuse it". Guess what? The article you point to highlights the objectivity of wikipedia, as they eventually *banned* that troll, didn't they? Also, how much do I need to spoon feed *you*? Apparently you don't know how to scan down a wiki page to the sources? Oh dear oh dear! Here's the source those wiki claims were based on.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/tssts-4-1.html

Instead of whining, put up or shut up. If you've got evidence that SHOULD be on that wiki page but ISN'T, why not simply submit it here? Note: that's not a request for your childish trolling echo-chambers — we know trolls like you have *plenty* of them. (Like your previous link: “Exposing & combating Liberal Media Bias". Gee, no bias in your sources, is there? ;-) Says a lot about why you're a climate denier!)

Put up or shut up. What we're after is is a National Academy of Science that claims 2 degrees or higher isn't a problem: not a concern at all. You've got work to do. Shouldn't be hard at all given how utterly biased you say wikipedia is. Off you go. Choof choof, there's a good chap.

Max says:” I replied in like manner. I hope you did not think I was addressing it to you. “
To understand this remark in perspective, Max baselessly labelled me a troll. On consideration of his behaviour, I was satisfied that the term fitted him exactly.
I have always maintained a civil attitude to other contributors, but if their behaviour is unacceptable, as is Max’s behaviour and language, then they cease to deserve my consideration. He has shown himself to be an uncivil, at times patronising troll, his lies and dishonesty govern his category, and my attitude to him..
Max’s situation is that his attempt to lie his way out of the fact that he has no science to show any measurable human effect has been ludicrous and insulting. Robert Carter made us aware that the carbon dioxide hypothesis of the fraud promoters has failed.
2. Max has no answer to that, and his increasingly childish posts, for example:” perfect storm of denialism you ignore the second IPCC post entirely, and are reduced to childishly putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "I hate wikipedia because some people abuse it". “
3. This type of tantrum indicates Max's childish desperation.
4. He falsely uses the scurrilous term “denial”, when he has no science to deny, and is reduced to relying on the false claim of the National Academies. If there is no science to support the assertion, and they certainly have none, their false claim is no better than your despicable dishonesty, Max.

Hi Leo,
rather than keep you in suspense, I stopped reading after "Max baselessly labelled me a troll" then saw blah blah blah. I'm simply not bothered by anything *you*, of all people, have to say on the subject.