> they themselves have made predictions that contradict themselves

Some scientists have made predictions that contradict other scientists' predictions. That happens all the time, in all fields. Eventually, with a bit of luck, experimental evidence makes it clear who was right, or someone spots the mistake one of them made. It doesn't mean that the branch of science where it happens is bullshit. (That standard would make everything bullshit. People make mistakes and work with incomplete and imperfect information. No getting around it.)

> climate scientists are rolling out the bullshit train. Just to keep their government grants coming in.

Could be true, though frankly I see much more sign of money-motivated bullshit on the anti-climate-science side. But nothing you've said so far is any evidence to speak of for it, because all you've done is find places where scientists disagree about something. Again, that happens all the time, in every field, and the most negative thing it actually tells us is that human beings are fallible.

> during these warmer periods we have significantly more life on earth

Sure. But, as I already said, total amount of life is not necessarily what we want to optimize for. If every human being died and was replaced by a million fruit flies and one elephant, that would be an enormous increase in the total number, and the total size, of living things on earth, but I wouldn't regard it as an improvement.

No one is saying that climate change is going to wipe out life on earth. (Well, I dunno, you can find idiots saying pretty much anything, but it's not a common view anywhere that I know of.)

> "4 nuclear bombs a second"

The thing I think you may be missing is that, in the context of weather and climate, nuclear bombs are pretty small. A big hurricane is something like three nuclear bombs per hour (depends on the size of the hurricane and the size of the bombs, of course).

I haven't heard "4 nuclear bombs per second", for what it's worth, and if the back-of-envelope calculation I just did is right the correct figure is more like 5 x 10^-5 nuclear bombs per second. But "nuclear bombs per second" is a stupid measure because our intuitions for how much energy a nuclear bomb puts out are bad in this context.

> Do you also assert that warming since the LGM is manmade? Overall I'm not seeing the problem at all.

Then perhaps I'm not explaining it clearly. (But, first of all, no, of course I am not saying any non-negligible warming earlier than, say, 1800CE is manmade.) My point is that (1) something could be good for "life on earth" but really bad for the human race, and (2) the state that would result from 14 degrees of warming (or whatever other geologically-inspired figure you might choose) might be entirely survivable, but that doesn't mean the process of getting there in a hurry wouldn't be a big disaster.

(You could live in many other places besides the house you currently live in. But if I knocked it down, it would be a big deal for you.)

> The report [...] literally explains itself. [...] RCP8.5

It does, indeed, explain itself, and RCP8.5 does not mean anything like "8.5% per year". The "8.5" in RCP8.5 means that radiative forcing reaches 8.5 W/m^2 by the year 2100. It has nothing whatever to do with 8.5% of anything or with anything per year.

There is no possible way we could "now have the actual data", because (to repeat) the 8.5 in RCP8.5 is defined by a state of affairs in the year 2100, and it's still only 2019.

Whoever or whatever told you that RCP8.5 means an 8.5% increase of something per year and that we're only at 0.85% was lying to you. Sorry to be so blunt, but I don't think there's any alternative.

Incidentally, RCP8.5 isn't a prediction, it's one of several scenarios used by the IPCC. That is, they say "if X happens, we expect Y to happen" for various X and Y, and RCP8.5 is one choice of X, not of Y. I think it's the most pessimistic of their scenarios. (It's rather early to say how reality compares with those various scenarios; it's not that many years since RCP8.5 and the rest were first defined.) I don't know why the graph you found on Wikipedia chose to use RCP8.5 rather than one of the others, but given that the graph is mostly about past rather than future temperatures I'm betting it wasn't anyone on the IPCC :-).

I would still like to see where your "RCP0.8" figure comes from. I'd make a sizeable bet that it's wrong.

> Al Gore in the Inconvenient Truth said Florida would be underwater by 2014.*

I do not believe you. Again, I'm prepared to be proven wrong; I certainly could be. But I will need more specifics than the unevidenced claim that somewhere in his movie he said Florida would be underwater by 2014. Can you give me his actual words? Can you tell me where in the movie he says them? (I think I have a copy somewhere, though I haven't watched it; if you give me something sufficiently specific I can check. I'm not going to sit through the whole thing in the hope of finding what you're referring to, though.)

> Actually he said it on video MANY times since the film

OK. Tell me where to find him saying it on video and I'll check.

> a more recent quote of his

Saying something entirely different. (And without context I've no idea how to interpret it. "Some of the models" could mean, for all I know, that they have a range of 100 models, and one of them with parameters no one much believes says the north polar ice cap is doomed in the very short term. Which could perfectly well have been true; again, scientists make mistakes just like everyone else.)