Ross McKitrick\:

"Do you want to see a list of the scientific institutions that canvassed their members before backing CAGW?"

"Would you like to see it again?"

The calculation of 1.2C rise in temperature for a doubling of CO2 is the solution to the S-B equation for a black body. A rise in temperature of 1.2C will cause more water vapour in the atmosphere. Alarmists scientists tell us that this water vapour will amplify the warming by between 1.5C and 4.5C, but haven't given us a "most likely" number in AR5. The sceptical position is that they have no clue as to whether this amplification will take place because they don't understand clouds, which will also form if there is water vapour in the air and offer a huge negative feedback capability. The numbers 1.5C to 4.5C came from the Charney Report written in 1979 and were drawn from two computer simulations, one of which said there would be an increase of 2C and the other (Jim Hansens, natch) an increase of 4C. Charney assumed and error of 0.5C so the range 1.5C to 4.5C was born. Here we are 5 IPCC ARs later and over $100bn spent on climate research and we still have the same range, only now the scientists can't agree about the likely amplification. Themost likely explanation for this is that the younger scientists are looking at the data and finding that observed sensitivity is below 2C, and a compromise was made to save the faces of the activists scientists.

They have also downgraded every scary scenario to pretty much harmless, but the wagon rolls on.

So yes Rhoda, they are saying what we've said all along, but not out loud.

I had a conversation with Richard Betts about modelling, it was along the lines of modelling the Grand National, something far less complicated than the climate, unfortunately although Richard was able to tell me a great deal about what was going to happen, i.e. the horses would run forward (someone should tell that to the jockeys I've put my money on over the years) and that they would jump fences some would fall at the fences some won't etc. Alas, he was humble enough to concede he couldn't model the race and pick a winner.

So now the Met Office, which claims, against all the data to be one of the top two weather forecasters on the planet is telling us, belatedly that they can't forecast the weather more than a few days out with their super dooper new models, like we didn't know all the time. Another example of them saying what we've been saying all along except in sotto voce. Again.

Geronimo/McKitrick, no canvassing? Maybe if a large proportion of their members objected they would do. Or, for China, Russia and any oil producing government with heavy hands and an interest in avoiding CO2 reductions, maybe they would impose their political wishes onto their scientific bodies. Or veto or obstruct the IPCC AR5. That none has done so is telling. Objecting to the basic warming effects of CO2 is for cranks. Sophisticated skeptics, real or fake, concentrate on sensitivity.