[Ooh err. DC points out that she may mean 10 oF. Being American, this is possible. Being a scientist, it shouldn’t be (but were she being a scientist there should be a unit symbol, so this is probably the newspaper, so this may well be oF). 3% chance of 10 oF is probably plausible, though I’d still be curious as to where she gets it from. The realisation that this is oF not oC makes this post just about pointless, but I’ll leave it up anyway :-) -W]
Thats what Judith Curry says the IPCC says (she is trying to counter Lomborg; thanks to CC for pointing out the article). It doesn’t look compatible with SPM-6, errrm, and since when I last looked there were no probablilities on any of the SRES scenarios I can’t see it could possibly exist.
There is a prize of the copyright to a naughty photo to anyone who can tell me where she gets her number from.
Oh dear. I’ve just read on: “The rationale for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide is to reduce the risk of the possibility of catastrophic outcomes”. Is it? Suppose you believe that a catastrophic outcome is totally implausible – a quite defensible viewpoint. Should you then argue against *any* CO2 reduction? Of course not. Nor does Curry believe her own words, since the very next para defends a cost-benefit analysis.