Climate myths continued

The key question in the climate debate is always what it all means for policy.

So, the 0.8 C may be 0.8 rather than 2.0C at present because of "natural factors"* or because of aerosols and ocean heat uptake.

What does it mean for policy on:

Geoengineering

CO2 capture and storage

Nuclear energy

Energy efficiency

CO2 taxes

Feed-in tariffs

On geoengineering, I notice that both sides vehemently agree that they do not want it now and that only some research is permissible. Neither follows from the climate sensitivity debate. In fact, if climate response was perfectly independent of the forcing applied and all types of forcing were perfectly additive and always linear, it should follow that geoengineering is a perfectly reasonable response.

I have noticed though that both sides agree on this one on the notion of not messing too much with nature.

Also for the other topics where actual policy decisions are required, ...

how does people's stance on nuclear power relate to the degree that masking to date is "natural" or due to anthropogenic aerosols and ocean heat uptake?

or

how would it relate to their views on feed-in tariffs for solar power?

* Defined here as if we had a billion Earths to experiment with, then taking a 1000 with the CO2 change and a 1000 without them, we'd have a change of 0.8C in either case on average. The Earth system acts like a thermostat towards CO2 and the reason the temperature rises is the same as with a house where the thermostat during the day is set 2 degrees higher and the rise of the outside temperature is purely coincidental and not causative of the temperature change inside the house.