MHAZE,
Because it is too hard for you to google the original “Do the Math” Rolling Stone piece:-
_______________________________________________________________
The Second Number: 565 Gigatons
Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees. (“Reasonable,” in this case, means four chances in five, or somewhat worse odds than playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter.)
This idea of a global “carbon budget” emerged about a decade ago, as scientists began to calculate how much oil, coal and gas could still safely be burned. Since we’ve increased the Earth’s temperature by 0.8 degrees so far, we’re currently less than halfway to the target. But, in fact, computer models calculate that even if we stopped increasing CO2 now, the temperature would likely still rise another 0.8 degrees, as previously released carbon continues to overheat the atmosphere. That means we’re already three-quarters of the way to the two-degree target.
How good are these numbers? No one is insisting that they’re exact, but few dispute that they’re generally right. The 565-gigaton figure was derived from one of the most sophisticated computer-simulation models that have been built by climate scientists around the world over the past few decades. And the number is being further confirmed by the latest climate-simulation models currently being finalized in advance of the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Looking at them as they come in, they hardly differ at all,” says Tom Wigley, an Australian climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “There’s maybe 40 models in the data set now, compared with 20 before. But so far the numbers are pretty much the same. We’re just fine-tuning things. I don’t think much has changed over the last decade.” William Collins, a senior climate scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, agrees. “I think the results of this round of simulations will be quite similar,” he says. “We’re not getting any free lunch from additional understanding of the climate system.”

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-188550/

OH MHAZE, what are we going to do with you? You said to me:-
_______________________________
“"You referenced 97% as by Cook?"
Oh dear. Are you unaware of Cook's (aka skepticalscience) 97% study? Just how clueless are you? I know it wasn't the first study to get the 97% number (that was Doran) but it is the most quoted because Doran was such a load of BS. Then again Cook's study is a load of BS as well, just not so obviously so.”
_______________________________

Oh dear oh dear oh dear! If you read what I wrote you can see that I didn’t question Cook’s study but was just asserting that there was earlier work. (Context Boy again much?)

It’s hilarious that you just attempted to be so condescending to me while vigorously shooting yourself in the foot multiple times! Ha ha ha ha. Get this.

Doran was 2009.
Oreskes was Dec 2004.

Yeah, Doran was the first, no really! ;-) Not only that, but Oreskes work was far more famous because her study was discussed a lot after “An Inconvenient Truth” screened in 2006. And it doesn’t stop there. Many studies stretch back into the 1990’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

The fact that you quote Doran as THE FIRST meta-study of the peer-reviewed climate science papers shows what a bad case of Dunning-Kruger’s you really have!

But this isn’t about you or me. I’m not saying I’m an expert!

I’m just saying I’ve read enough Denier trash and then traced it back to what the REAL EXPERTS have actually said and found the Deniers to be outright liars! Like idiots asserting there was a massive Ice Age scare in the climate science. Without any evidence, just reasserting it — without bothering to do their own homework like the pathetic pissants they really are! Are you going to do your own homework for a change? Please, try and justify the Ice Age disease rattling around in that brain-freeze affected imagination of yours. Go ahead. It will amuse me.

MHAZE,
On cherrypicking one cooling extreme vs the globe's warming extremes. Yes, weather is rolling the dice and sometimes still throws up a few new extreme colds. But you'd have to be retarded to deny all the new heat extremes. The maximum daily and nightly temperatures just keep falling and more could fall this week.
_____________________________________
Observations of weather extremes show the expected long-term trends in line with the increase of the global average temperature: almost everywhere hotter heat extremes, almost everywhere less frigid cold extremes, in general more intense precipitation, but with variations from region to region, and more damage from hurricanes through more precipitation and higher storm surges. Other extremes are not so simply related to climate change, and we are undertaking background research to make rapid attribution of these extremes possible.
http://www.worldweatherattribution.org/trends-in-weather-extremes-february-2018/
_____________________________________

Now be a good little Denier and run along and find a quote from WUWT that cast's doubt on the world's top 4 temperature databases because... climate scientists are in it for the money ... or something. Run along now!

Lasty MHAZE,
I'll just remind everyone that your "Do the math" critique based on the temperature ranges is still blasted out of the water by the IPCC's probability statements, along with this latest study to the journal Nature.

"Here we present a new emergent constraint on ECS that yields a central estimate of 2.8 degrees Celsius with 66 per cent confidence limits (equivalent to the IPCC ‘likely’ range) of 2.2–3.4 degrees Celsius. Our approach is to focus on the variability of temperature about long-term historical warming, rather than on the warming trend itself."  January 2018 http://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450 

Your reply? Ignorant pissant bluster.
Please try harder.

We continue to fight for our views and it seems some of those views are, let us face it, based on who we vote for
In time believe it, right wing governments will fall,

You can not stop folk seeing the constant new records being set and it is under notice
Science is the winner in the end as the older of us fade away the youth of today have much more open eyes

Max wrote:

"your "Do the math" critique based on the temperature ranges is still blasted out of the water by the IPCC's probability statements, along with this latest study to the journal Nature."

What "probability statements"? And the paper you refer to doesn't change anything in regards to my point which was that if one of the inputs is a range then the result must be a range. Its the simplest of maths. That you can't comprehend it tells me a lot. The Nature paper had different ranges but a range nonetheless. Thee are probably hundreds of papers that come to different range limits. But they all come to a range.

Even in the article you linked they admit that the number of 565gt isn't exact and that all their simulations come to different results. Why? Because of the ranges...struth, why is this so hard for you.

But on the Rolling Stone article. (Rolling Stone!! - what has poor Max become? What's next 'Mad Magazine'. The chap who refuses to look at papers that are liked by 'deniers' puts his faith in Rolling Stone. Man, what a dill). Anyway about the article. It shows that there was NO math done.

Max has spent years now telling us to 'do the math' and it turns out that even the people he put his ignorant faith in didn't 'do the math'. They ran simulations through their climate models and took the results as fact. We don't know which models. What the parameters were. What the RANGE of results were. None of that. But poor old Max is utterly, ignorantly convinced of the result.

/cont