Do you believe in climate change?

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. I’m sorry, but you’re wrong

First: We’ve already overshot 350ppm. So, if changes start at 350ppm, they’ve already started (as I said.)


Second: 350 is not a magic figure. Temperatures were warming before we hit 350ppm.


Third: returning to 350 ppm is not magic either. James Hansen et al, did not say that if we get back to 350 ppm all will be rosy: (This is from the paper which proposed the 350 ppm target.)
http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874282300802010217

[font face=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][font size=3]…

We suggest an initial objective of reducing atmospheric CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] to 350 ppm, with the target to be adjusted as scientific understanding and empirical evidence of climate effects accumulate. Although a case already could be made that the eventual target probably needs to be lower, the 350 ppm target is sufficient to qualitatively change the discussion and drive fundamental changes in energy policy. Limited opportunities for reduction of non-CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] human-caused forcings are important to pursue but do not alter the initial 350 ppm CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] target. This target must be pursued on a timescale of decades, as paleoclimate and ongoing changes, and the ocean response time, suggest that it would be foolhardy to allow CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] to stay in the dangerous zone for centuries.

…[/font][/font]

The idea was that bringing levels back down to 350 ppm is a first goal, which will (in itself) require “fundamental changes in energy policy.”