Lets acknowledge but ignore the impact of other GHGs (or rather pretend that they behave as if they were just an additional amount of CO2, which they don't, but which is close enough for purposes of this discussion).

Suppose that thermal inertia and dimming are hiding a large amount of global warming. Suppose fraction X of the total warming is represented by the 0.7 degrees.

Then the total additional impact of 580ppm CO2 would then be roughly 0.7*((1-0.43)/0.43)/X or 0.928/X.

If X is 0.6 (corresponding to a 40% masking effect, substantially LESS than most climatologists seem to be predicting, but plausible) then thats less than 1.55 degrees Celsius.

Its hard for me to see the need for immediate action if that large a change in CO2 results in that small a change in temperature.

Clearly either the models are predicting something decidedly more complex than inertia and dimming (in which case I'd like a reference to what it is) or the models are wrong, possibly because they fail to account for Lindzen's argument.

>> the models are wrong >>

They are so unbelievably wrong it really isn't funny anymore.

If the people knew what really is going on, and how impossible it is to fix the climate problem, I fear for civilisation.

The authorities, the media, forums such as this, have been pushing BS for so long that they all believe their own propaganda.

Meanwhile the situation has become critical ( oh it was about 10 years ago) and denial and I believe total fear now has created such inertia that mitigating action will now be impossible.  The leaders and their proxies are completely culpable.

But hey, good call, THEY have passed blame onto everyone, BASTARDS.

Such is the state of play.