Kind of alarming at any level

Hmmm.   Just heard an NPR report on the wrapping up of the global climate change conference in Scotland.

The reporter focused on how everyone appears to be backing away from hard commitments and that the activists are disappointed about that.

There was a different statement which surprised me.  The reporter said something to the effect that they were trying to get commitment keep global warming below 1.5 C.  

When did those goal posts move.  At the beginning the focus was on reducing CO2 emissions.  Whether you agree that those are causal in nature or not, it makes that that should be the measure.  

It is very unclear to me that CO2 is in fact a causal agent.  I see evidence on both sides of the ledger.  Being a conservationist, I am disposed to believe that we should indeed constrain our exogenous emissions but always with cost benefit analysis underpinning that decision-making.  

We know that climate is always changing, some of it in predictable ways (to some degree El Nino, the solar cycle, etc.) and in some ways less clearly (what is the cycle for the Holocene?)  Climate is always changing for natural reasons.

What percentage of that change might also be caused by human activities.  My suspicion is that land use activities are more consequential than CO2.  But I have no line of sight on whether the influence is positive or negative nor to what degree.  If climate is going to warm by one degree naturally in the next century, what percentage of that warming is man-made?  5%?  10%?  20%?  50%?

Nobody knows.  At least no one is willing to make that calculation.  

Consequently, it has always made sense to measure and constrain exogenous contributions such as CO2.

But the reporter indicated that it was not externalities like CO2 which is being measured, but process outcomes.  That is venal and perfidious.

It is essentially an imposition of a massive tax on societies to reduce wealth and productivity on average but on no basis except temperature which we know to be naturally variable for natural reasons.  This would be a massive and corrupt sleight of hand if that is what has happened.

But has it?  Did I just miss it at some point in recent years?  Maybe the reporter was simply wrong in their articulation.  

Hmm.  Kind of alarming at any level.