MHAZE,
You insisted they had not 'done the math' to come up with an approximate number. The IPCC has actually done the math. It involves the known warming of an estimated 1.2 degrees per doubling for the raw increase in CO2. Then it involves the extra 2ish degrees per doubling from the Climate Sensitivity. That's where you insisted there was no probability from the models, and outright lied about how the IPCC had come up with their carbon budget range. That's when your Dunning Kruger's got too much for you, and you jumped up and down insisting there WAS NO PROBABILITY!

But rather than admit you were wrong, Black is white, up is down, right is wrong, and everyone but Mhaze is wrong.

Yeah mate, we're with ya! Anyone interested in the truth can go back to my links and study the conversation context.
And the CO2 range isn't that great, but is down to 420 GT highest probability carbon allowance for 1.5 degrees at 66% probability, even as they also allow for a range 100 GT either side depending on how other things go!
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

That's a bit different to 100-1000 range you're trying to project, but that's what you do isn't it? Lie and project?

Dear Lego,

Back for another beating? Hell mate I'm just standing by while you keep punching yourself in the face. You poor old thing. Unable to address a single thing I put to you. I fully agree there was a medieval warming period but we have no idea just how global it was. However I can't put is any better than what I did a couple of posts ago;

“What on earth does the Medieval Warming period have to do with our current situation?

We are marching toward a doubling of CO2 levels in our atmosphere due to human activities and you need to come up with a decent explanation as to why such a raising the concentration of the second most important green house gas will not result in a warming planet.

If you want to deny the physics then go ahead but that is where most thinking people will stop listening to you. If you want to accept the physics but put the position that other factors were having a negative impact on global temperatures thus the projected warming will not be significant then put your case.”

Now stump up for once.

As to Flannery you said “lets look at climate scientists and their predictions”. Flannery is a well respected scientist but he isn't a climate scientist.

What else you got?

Dear mhaze,

You asked “Care to explain, SR, how it is that the story that the 20 year number was the result of denier websites and chinese whispers”? Because 20 years after a rather innocuous statement in an interview was corrected it is still being bandied about on sites like this.

Do I really need to repeat this a third time to get you to understand a very simple point?

Hi Max. Got your confidence back again, I see? You have submitted six points to me, but I can only address one at the moment because of the accursed 350 word limit.

Did you look at the graphs I asked you to look at? No, of course you did not. The reason is, because you do not want to look at what you fear to see. If you had looked at the graphs, you would have seen in the headings for these graphs said "GLOBAL TEMPERTURE VARIATIONS OVER THE LAST 10,000 YEARS" or GLOBAL TEMPERATURES LAST 10,000 YEARS", or "GLOBAL TEMPERATURES 2500 BC to 2000 AD"

Now,, you are pretty good at asking me to verify everything I write. So I am going to ask you politely to verify your assertion that the Roman WP and the Medieval WP were localised affairs. This because it is a crucial question. It is not like one of your misdirection questions that are simply trying run me in circles to stifle the debate. This is a big one.

I have a funny feeling that you have a lump in your guts right now, because you know you can not validate your claim. But my proof is in black and white. Just Google "photos, global temperatures, 10,000years."

My advice to you is that it is time to stop being nasty and instead start being a bit more humble. It will help when you finally figure out that you were wrong all along and you have been lied to. I promise I will not rub it in. I would rather turn you away from the Dark Side than humiliate you.

In order to make people realise that they are wrong, you have to start with something that they can no longer deny. Once you figure out that whoever told you that the Roman WP and the Medieval WP were localised affairs, then you might be able to figure out that somebody has been lying to you. And that should get you to think rationally and objectively about the whole damned hoax of HIGW.

LEGO: You’re so delusional about your own pet theory that it makes me sad. Goodbye for now.

Now, MHAZE!
Everyone just knows the Roman Warm Period started exactly on 1st Jan 250 BC when LEGO’s 1000-year magic clock magically decided to warm the earth! (No one knows how LEGO’s clock actually works, but it’s a pattern he’s identified from ‘armchair history’, not science. Also, may not actually run on 1000-year intervals and may not be a real clock.)

You’ve got me! Theophrastus couldn’t POSSIBLY have grown date trees 37 years before LEGO’s MAGIC CLOCK started! (Except, radio-carbon dated limpet shells define the RWP as 2500 years ago, starting at 480 BC? Oops! I love LEGO’s peanut-butter powered and tinfoil hat tuned MAGIC CLIMATE CLOCK!)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018211006080

PROBLEM! RWP & MWP were both cooler GLOBAL climates than today even if some local conditions were pretty warm.
http://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-2000-years

Also, so what if they were warmer? Your RWP & MWP arguments EVEN IF CORRECT are logically incoherent with disproving today’s Anthropogenic warming. This is what I’ve never understood. Even if correct — SO WHAT?

“Flawed Reasoning: Natural climate change events in the past do not provide evidence that human emissions of greenhouse gas are incapable of changing the climate today.
It's not true that the world has been warmer at other times during the last 2,000 years. But even if that were the case, it would not change the fact that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing Earth's climate to warm.”
http://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/the-earth-was-not-warmer-in-medieval-times-town-hall-gregory-rummo/

Jesus, Mhaze, I see what you mean. These two are like fundamentalist Christians. Any reasoned arguments backed up with black and white evidence that contradicts their PC programming, and they refuse to even look at it, They stick their fingers in their ears and say Nananana!

Dear Steelie.

Your argument is that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the present climate change. That is complete hokey. Whereas I agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and logically, increasing a greenhouse gas should cause atmospheric temperatures to rise, nobody can say how significant it is. Especially, since the graph I told you to look at, which you and Max are too frightened to look at, shows no causal link between CO2 levels and global temperatures over 570 million years.

Got that? Even though enough CO2 should affect global temperatures, the historical record does not back that premise up. Don't believe me ? LOOK AT THE GRAPH.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNSOzCknLUH6NYIwzGz8M3ArhMdUdQ:1579710390783&q=global+temperatures+10000+years&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj45cLlz5fnAhUw63MBHZAADzkQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085#spf=1579710394523

The "scientists" who promote HIGW know that global warming is cyclical and appears unrelated to CO2. Their scientific opponents know it as well. That is why scientific opposition to the HIGW hoax is growing, and it includes tens of thousands of US scientists, and also includes Apollo astronauts.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/28939894/than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-

http://www.climatedepot.com/2019/07/17/apollo-astronauts-climate-skeptics-moonwalkers-defy-gores-claim-that-skeptics-are-akin-to-those-who-believe-moon-landing-was-staged/

The significance of the Medieval Warm Period is plainly shown in the other graphs I told you to look at, which you were too frightened to look at. The Graphs showing and naming the GLOBAL warming periods show that Global Warming is cyclical and recurs in a repeating fashion. Our modern warming period is self evidently a continuation of that repeating cycle. A picture is worth a thousand words.

But you don't want to believe what your own eyes will see, do you? So, you are never going to look at the graphs, are you? You want to believe that today's global warming can only be caused by CO2, and you are not going to let the facts get in the way of your simplistic PC programming. Better to avert your eyes and just keep chanting the mantra "CO2 is the cause".

Oh no, Max. Please don't run away with your tail between your legs yet. I am enjoying this too much.

Look, I have to admit that there seems to be very significant difference between the graphs that you are presenting on your links, and the graphs that I am presenting on my links. This seems to be the real question. Who is telling the truth, and who is telling blatant porky pies?

To answer that question, I would present the undeniable fact that the science is clearly not settled. And whereas HIGW was once unquestionably accepted, this is no longer the case. Serious scientific opposition is growing with the passage of time.

In defence of the graphs in my own link

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNSOzCknLUH6NYIwzGz8M3ArhMdUdQ:1579710390783&q=global+temperatures+10000+years&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj45cLlz5fnAhUw63MBHZAADzkQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085&gws_rd=ssl#spf=1579712155480

If you and Steelie had ever raised yourselves from your intellectual torpor to check my link, you would have discovered that there are literally dozens of graphs, even some supporting Michael Manne's infamous "hockey stick" graph. This graph seems to have been the spark which ignited the scientific pushback. But in sheer numbers, there are more graphs supporting my side than yours. The graphs displaying Greenland ice cores and past sea levels are almost identical to those displaying global temperatures over a 10,000 year period.

As for Manne's "hockey stick" graph, which some of the graphs on your sites are supporting and even imitating, I would say this. Presenting global warming on only a 1000 year scale is self evidently inaccurate. 1000 years is an eyeblink in terms of climate change. Even Steelie can appreciate that (with a bit of coaching). Any graph which presents a ridiculously short y-axis to present information more appropriate to a much larger scale is a half truth dressed as a full truth. And a half truth presented as a full truth is a complete lie.

Air brushing out the entire Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, and instead presenting global temperatures for the last 1000 years as a flat line, was so dumb that any intelligent person today must wonder how Manne ever thought he would get away with it