Firstly, I said it was in invention. It's an argument that has the benefit of never having to provide any sort of evidence to back it up. But since I'm forced

Firstly, I said it was in invention. It's an argument that has the benefit of never having to provide any sort of evidence to back it up. But since I'm forced to attack the strawman: let me put it another way: if humans are responsible for less warming than 100%, then we're going to have to do more to mitigate our effects, because we have to mitigate more human behaviour for the same outcome. Until we're making meaningful changes - yet to happen - it's utterly irrelevant if we've caused 50%, or 100%.