"This morning on radio it wes stated on the local news that scientist claim the world will warm by two degrees by 2100. At the end of the story they stated that these same scientists previously claimed that we would warm six degrees by 2100. There was no statement as to how they came to the conclusion that we would warm by two degrees. I can only assume that it was the same method that they used to calculate the six degree rise."
There is a lie right there Wallbrook - climate scientists (particularly those involved with the IPCC) always give a range (and often a scenario e.g. business as usual (BAU), deep emission cuts, medium emission cuts etc etc) when predicting the level of warming. I put it to you that you (or the radio station) are making this crap up and dumbing it down, or your ears have "selective hearing" turned on. Either way, nothing unusual, nothing changes around here.
Now I have read your second post regarding this and it is clear to me that you have misunderstood the article. The article is talking about uncertainty in projections, something I think we would all agree needs to be minimised. There is also a range in there and the range is between two and six degrees - exceeding 6 degrees is unlikely by 2100 for BAU (thank God for that, the planet would be uninhabitable in many parts) but exceeding 2 degrees is virtually certain. From the article: "Keeping warming below 2 degrees is necessary to minimise dangerous climate change." I don't know why people think this is such a good thing to warm by at least 2 degrees, but its certainly better than 6 degrees!
Why is it that you cannot understand the way these ranges are articulated? Instead you have to twist their words to suit your own ends.
