Oh man sorry. I think it's meant to be .56 if the indirect effects of aerosols are taken out of the equation. That's what I got from the climate sensitivity section anyway:

"6. Empirical Climate Sensitivity [20] Using equations (14), (9), and (5), the range of the ocean uptake efficiency, from Table 2, and both the radiative forcing of increasing concentration of CO2 and reduced AOD, the empirical climate sensitivity is l ¼ 0:29 to 0:48 0:12 K=Wm2 ð15Þ where ±0.12 K/Wm2 (equation won't copy properly, sorry) represents our estimate of uncertainty due to approximations used and due to uncertainty in selected parameters (Table 1). If the aerosol indirect effect is neglected the climate sensitivity increases to 0.56 K/Wm2 "

This is where I need help, not with typos (lol) but with my limited understanding of what I'm reading. I'm keen to learn so please feel free to correct me.

This certainly is not representative of most of the stuff I've tried to read. But still a lot of stuff seems to have come out since around 2008 that points to less than 2C warming for a doubling of Co2.

No problem.  That value is the climate sensitivity, so it's the change in global surface temperature per radiative forcing.  Usuaually if we want to get the change of temperature from that value, we need to multiply it by the radiative forcing to cancel out the W/m^2 units; however, this paper also includes the "effiency of ocean heat uptake" in their equation.  I don't know enough about ocean heat uptake to comment on it, though.  

#FeeltheBern

Actually they moved that up to 99.9% http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/01/14/do-97-of-scientists-really-agree-on-climate-change-nope-its-more-like-99-9-says-expert/

Wow that's a suspect study.....

Change the definitions of the original studies and then just imply the rest. That's just giving sceptics more ammo.

So the radiative forcing is the 1.5 to 4.5 figure that the IPCC claim? That makes it very hard to predict IMO. I'm surprised they haven't narrowed it down. But then again this is the Earth's climate we're talking about here...

Edit: Oops. The 1.5 - 4.5 is degrees C, and it's the climate sensivity after various feedbacks (cloud cover, water vapor etc) have been taken into account. There does seem to be a fair bit of dispute regarding the feedbacks though. I'm currently trying to figure out if they used an average of all peer reviewed papers or a specific set.

I think it's disgusting. I believe the threat is exaggerated and the prediction models are wrong.

First, there's thousands of not just scientists but also reporters, celebrities and institutions that exaggerate this threat because it's good for their career and wealth.

In media and among the masses, awareness of global warming works much like a religion. All of a sudden modern man is given a higher purpose in life. People act as if they're doing something holy when they work for the environment. It's important to show off and let everyone know. You have the apostles, priests and peasant. Sceptics aren't tolerated. Hypocrisy will fluorish. Mind control is important.

The plan for reducing CO2 is a nasty tool for wealth distribution (nasty since it's not transparent). The political left wants to believe in global warming because the actions to reduce CO2 are so expensive that it will weaken the West, our capitalist system and traditional Western values, and instead benefit people with alternative lifestyles and political view, people without cars or wealth. The commies hope that consumerism will decrease and that a lot of money will be transfered to the third world and to all sorts of "holier-than-thou" people.

I may be falling for trolling here, considering the time, but you really think that post 1980 has been more deregulated than before hand?

Also, just to make sure that everybody is on the same page, but everybody in here does know that CO2 does not act in a linear fassion, but in a regressibe fassion. So for unit of temperature increase causedby CO2, you need more CO2 to get the same increase than what was required for the increase before this, everybody knows this right?

Wow here's a good paper if anyone can be bothered reading it:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/318/5850/629.full

You have to subscribe to read it (yes, I'm nerding out on climate change), but it explains quite well why the climate models have not been particularly accurate. Basically, because despite the huge increases they've had in research and computing power, climate scientists are still just as unable to predict climate sensitivity to Co2 as they were 30 years ago.

Very telling....We're not as clever as we think we are.

Are we clever enough to make another habitable planet on short notice in case this one goes to crap? 

That's just my POV on this, if you only have one pair of pants, you probably don't want to shit your pants ... or get ketchup all over them or whatever. If that's just common sense, why is to so different for a planet? Until we can colonize/terraform other planets we probably should err on the side of caution.