What you’ve done is cherry picked one source, ignore those linked, and even ignored the statements of the source you chose.
The IPCC is one of the most heavily quoted sources of research on the topic. If you choose to ignore that, that’s your problem, not mine.
Calling the IPCC the “authoritative source” on climate demonstrates a lacking understanding of how scientific research is conducted.
That’s actually an error that you’re making, not I. Not all sources are equal, after all; you don’t take a current estimate from a select group of highly respected scientists and average it together with an estimate from a less established group made in 2009, which is what you’ve done by cherrypicking the article that gives you the 6 degree estimate.
But that said, on their front page, IPCC has a report which acknowledges 1.5 degrees of warming has already been reached. Add the 1.6 degree warming which your mathematics provided, and we have warming of 3.1 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Once again, the last ice age was just 2 degrees cooler than the pre-industrial average. That kind of warming will be catastrophic.
That was all factual until your last sentence. If you’re a smart guy, you can easily tell me why your last sentence is a conclusion that does not logically follow from the facts.
I have provided more than enough information to dismiss your attack, and even gone as far as to directly address your own flawed research. If that does not convince you, I fear nothing will. For someone who claims to be a data driven conservative, you seem to lack and understanding of both data and conservation.
There’s a substantial amount of hubris in that paragraph, especially considering you don’t have the education nor the scientific background to make it.