cc: Gavin Schmidt , Phil Jones date: Fri, 30 May 2008 14:24:45 +0200 from: Stefan Rahmstorf subject: Re: Thompson et al paper to: mann@psu.edu Friends, of course Roger Pielke's A-D logical choices are also wrong. Isn't he a mathematician by training, so if he doesn't understand climate physics, he at least should understand some logic? I could come to the conclusion "most is anthropogenic" even if I don't know whether the actual warming has been 0.3 or 0.9 ºC say, e.g. on the basis of amplitude-independent fingerprint studies, or the fact that natural forcings tend toward cooling, etc. - and given the factor 3 uncertainty in climate sensitivity. Concluding "most" is anthropogenic expressly does not state how much that would be in ºC, as Roger tries to frame it. Stefan -- Stefan Rahmstorf [1]www.ozean-klima.de [2]www.realclimate.org