I think this will be the case at least before the current century has ended. I have made comparisons between the devotion (this is the best word to describe it) to Hansen's hypothesis with a similar devotion to Lysenko's hypothesis in the Soviet Union and the belief in Eugenics in the Western Nations in the twentieth century. There is something going on with climate, there always is. Evidence against CO2 as the main cause, however, is building in the peer reviewed literature. And the often repeated untruth that there is 90%+ agreement on climate change is of course completely incorrect. Those actually working in and publishing in that area are quite divided in opinion, and the other opinions don't matter. I am a strong advocate for the Paris Climate Accord and for the development of alternative energy sources, but I believe CO2 as a significant driver of climate change has been rather thoroughly disproven at this point. I am in the Salby camp. I think he is correct in saying that Temperature is the independent variable and CO2 the dependent variable. That's consistent with both T-CO2 correlation and the phase relationship, whereas CO2 as the independent variable is consistent with correlation only; not with the phase data. There is a anthro contribution to atmospheric CO2, no question about that, but the half life assumed by the IPCC is at least one order too great. We now know the half life fairly accurately, and the initial guesses were way off. The fundamental problem is that all of these dire predictions have come from admittedly quite defective models of climate. I am a scientist, but not a climate scientist. I have learned through many years of personal experience that one should be extremely wary of jumping to conclusions when dealing with complex phenomena. The media and opinion poles are not a useful means of answering scientific questions.
