Uh huh. Funny how a billionaire has so easily convinced you that adding costs to his competitors (and consumers) is really "removing a subsidy".
Or would you call it "not letting coal plants externalize their costs on everyone else"?
Why are carbon emissions any different?
https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/05/cloud-shows-pre-indu...
This is a bold claim completely unsupported by your link.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-n...
> we don't know by how much
This is a measurable (and measured) thing. We know exactly how much the Earth has already warmed. We do not know exactly how much it will warm in the future, but we know how much it has warmed. And the articles are also not nearly as pessimistic about how good our estimates are. You're acting as if we're flying blind just because our models are imperfect.
> but likely not nearly as much as we previously thought
FTA: "He says that the current best estimates of future temperature rises are still feasible, but "the highest values become improbable.""
So no. The current best estimates are still the best estimates. This does not jive at all with your assertion that it's "likely not nearly as much".
And you're misrepresentating what I said. I didn't say our estimates were getting worse. I made it clear they would simply would be lower than before. And both articles I linked made it clear that the new estimates would be improved.
You're splitting hairs about nothing when you aren't representing what I said. Have a good day.
I hope you have a great day, too.