Almost all of the numbers involved with discussions of Climate Change are somewhat squishy. I have found it is helpful to anchor analysis on data points that are solid.

We can all agree on the measurement of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. With the Argo floats we have very accurate measurements of the amount of heat in the oceans. Finally, with the paleoclimate records we have fairly good measurements of GMT in correlation to CO2 levels for the last 500my.

While we can argue about the paleo record. It is grounded in measurements of geologic evidence and provides predictive indications of the global response to various levels of atmospheric CO2.

It seems to me, that right now the problem is that our models are consistently underestimating the speed and degree of the observable warming. We clearly do not have as good a handle on the Earth’s Thermal Sensitivity as one might hope at this stage.

We have been handicapped by a lack of measurements for the effect of SOx on the GMT. Estimates put it at a low of 0.4C and a high of 0.9C of "masked" warming.

This is an unacceptable degree of uncertainty when discussing the future of our civilization and a mass extinction event. But here we are because the field of Climate Science has become so culturally toxic.

Much of the lack of clarity in the field is due to the chilling effect the constant attacks by the Right have had. Saying the wrong thing in an email, post, paper, or interview can cost you your career. A lot of the chatter between Climate Scientists is happening out of view right now.

It is very telling that when Nature took a poll last year asking top Climate Scientists how much warming they expected by 2100, it was an anonymous poll. It was also very telling that 80% think 2.5C or hotter, 60% think 3C or hotter, 25% think 4C or hotter.

That's what the top Climate Scientists predict when they can speak "off the record".