Hi butcherboy, I cant make sense out of your response.
In 1750s we had CO2 levels at X. In modern times we have seen an "almost equivalent of the doubling CO2 of 1750s" i.e. almost 2X if you include the other GHGs. I used this to prove something that Monckton said may not be too far fetched.
If what you are saying is that I should include the current levels of the other GHGs into the equation too then that would be double counting as the CO2e already includes them. Follow it through. Start at 1750. Convert all increases from 1750 till today into CO2 terms. What do you see? Simple.
If the temperatures haven not jumped enormously given this almost doubling in CO2, please explain how the current fear-mongering science is not modelling an over sensitive climate.
And yes your point of CO2e doubling more rapidly is correct as the other gases are more potent and we are also emitting them in huge amounts. But I fail to understand why you think its incorrect to convert them to CO2e and argue against the over-sensitivity. The argument you present sounds something like this:
1. Theory: A bucket will break if its loaded with 5kgs of water. 2. I turn on 2 taps. The faster tap dispensing oil and the slower tap dispensing water. At a weight of 5kgs the bucket doesnt break. I argue the theory is invalidated. 3. Your response, you cant convert oil to water-equivalent as the water-equivalent is growing at a faster rate then the tap dispensing just water. Does this sound logical to you?
