https://www.reportingclimatescience.com/.../cato...
Using several analytic methods, I have been saying for ages that Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is probably between 2C and 2.5C. The IPCC has always had that range within their broader range, but always near the bottom.
My primary methodology is based upon using CO2 levels and global temperatures since 1880 which is about the time period over which decent estimates are available. As you may have read, the two series have a correlation problem if it is the result of just ECB. The early years are consistently warmer than what is predicted by such a model and, consequently, the planet is not warming fast enough in the more recent years.
However, as I say incessantly, 'Everything is multivariate'. So, using intermediate statistics, I assumed that the temperature rise is the result of CO2 AND a secular warming. In other words, the assumption is that during the early years of the series, the Earth was still coming out of the 'Little Ice Age'. My goal was to eliminate, to the degree possible, the non-randomness of errors. Doing so would result in the conclusion that about 1/2 of the warming is not related to CO2 and renders the ECB of 2.0C to 2.5C.
Other researchers have used other methods and these also frequently render results in a range similar to mine. The Cato institute is a blatant exercise in confirmation bias lists 14 of them. Why should cherry picking be allowed? Because, the Chicken Littles are cherry picking in the opposite direction. The purpose is one of remediation. The propaganda needs to be answered, even if Cato's implication is also propaganda.
Why is this important? Because an ECB in the 4.0C range suggests rapid climatic impacts, while the ECB of 2.0C to 2.5C does not. In other words, in the former case, the sky is falling (sort of) and in the latter, it is not.
Also, the land based, temperature series issued by NASA, NOAA, et alia, has been 'adjusted' into uselessness. Fortunately, the old data is still available, and that is what I used. Also, I 'stitched' it to the current satellite data from UA-Huntsville. https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/June2022/202206_Bar.png It shows about a 0.5C increase over the past 44 years or about 1.14C per century. The U.S. government has 'adjusted' that to about 0.9C without reconciling to the satellite data. They also adjusted away the rapid increase in temperatures from 1880 to the beginning of the satellite era. Fortunately, we still have the old published data from before their adjustments. I strongly suggest that you look at RealClimateScience.com to get an idea of the evidence of NASA/NOAA data tampering. Though I warn you, if you decide to dive into the back and forth between Tony Heller and the Chicken Littles, it will soak up an enormous amount of time. However, it will be transformational, I think.
What is the irrefutable evidence that CO2 has a part in global warming? All I could find is correlational, and not causational evidence. If you could cite me some, that would be appreciated.
There is data that shows that the rise of CO2 followed the temperature rise, not the other way around. I really would like to see evidence that is not peddled along some narrative they want to push through.