Where do I even start.
1. The fact that more and more research is coming out and everything points to a continuing decrease in the estimated "sensitivity" of climate to changes in CO2, seem obvious to me for so many reasons.
2. The fact that the IPCC reports from the start were entirely based on a total logical fallacy and flawed reasoning. I actually read the first IPCC report (think it was 1999), I was in first taking Econ 201/203 and it struck me in the IPCC report, it was impossible for them to come to any other conclusion other than that an increase in CO2 caused an increase in temperature (based on the design of the analysis). The reason I saw it so quickly is I had just had the notion of ceterus parabus pounded into me (concept In Economics, which refers to "all else equal" this change has this effect, For example, ceterus perabus an increase in the demand for oil causes an increase in price. It was clear to me, though not articulated at all, that the basis of the analysis relied on ceterus parabus, in "predicting" what impact CO2 has on temperature.
The PROBLEM with the logic and WHY they had to approach it this way is related. We know there are MANY factors that hugely influence the climate and despite the way it's portrayed CO2 is a MINOR fone. Don't believe me?? Then how would it even be possible,that when CO2 levels were in the MANY 1000's parts per million (vs 365ish PPM today), that if Man increases CO2 to let's say by double they estimate several degrees of warming,? By that reasoning CO2 levels 10+ times higher as they were millions of years ago should have warmed the planet by 20-30 degrees!! (Which thankfully DID NOT happen). These are not accurate numbers, it wouldn't be a linear relationship anyway, BUT a larger part of the argument today is the fear of positive feedback loops and what they call extreme "runaway warming" started by doubling of CO2. Well it's obvious that won't happen otherwise it would have happened a long time ago when CO2 were WAY higher.
More proof? Ice ages come and go and have never been related at all to changes in CO2!
More? The ice core date Gore referenced in his movie showing a close relationship between CO2 and temperatures! Yes, 100% true. But doesn't mention that changes in CO2 LAG temperature changes by thousands of years, NOT the other way around.
Back to the IPCC, there was discussion about the different variables that drive climate but over and over they were explaining the rational for assuming the was no change! I hope iobvious that it's just incorrect to assume in the first place, AND we know CO2 concentrations have increased and we know temperature has increased, so setting all other variables in your fancy model to NIL makes it impossible for a linear regression to show anything but very strong correlation/causation!