It all really boils down to how and where we are going to get our power for the future. The goals they state from 0% increase by 2020 to the almost 90% decrease in emissions by 2050, who and what are doing those studies, are they making assumptions for non existent technology someone has estimated that will be invented? Or is it all based upon existing technology? Have they even thought of the how??
Really CO2 is a major piece of the puzzle showing (similar to texas hold'em) we do still have other cards being revealed as we speak, such as carbon soot. Localised climate changes also plays a bit part.
So for me AGW is still real, and is the major affector, but like you said Cbacba "problem with climate analysis is that it crosses so many disciplines, no one can be an expert on all of it", there will be no satisfactory endpoint for everyone to agree.
__________________
"Natural climate forces can not be underestimated, but no climate model produced can show the speed of the melting in the Arctic that has occurred without adding human contributed emissions." A Physicist from the U.S Army.
http://www.theage.com.au/frontpage/2.../frontpage.pdf
|