Is this a Whoosh or a Sting?
And from you as well, my friend.
It is not a question of hijacking. If scientific organizations had voted on tectonic drift in 1950 or so, they would have been just as unanimous … and just as wrong.
Right, attack the messenger, that’s worked so well to date. So if Marc Morano reports it, it must be untrue. Is that truly the position that you, as a scientist, want to take? You comfortable with that?
Perhaps, if that is the case, you could point me to a single statement on the page that you know to be untrue.
Y’know, people keep saying that models show the same, but I haven’t found anyone yet that can back it up. Perhaps you are the one who can. Out of all of the climate models out there, which one shows a decade with no warming during the period 2000-2100? I’ve looked, and I haven’t found one yet, but it could be out there. Please let us know your findings. I would imagine that it is a rare event in climate models. But possible, no doubt. I just haven’t found it, or determined its rarity.
However, it does lead to another question. If the reason for a non-warming decade is “natural variability”, then how can you claim that the reason for a warming decade is not “natural variability”? Because that is the claim that is often made about the '90s, that the warming was not due to natural causes …
Many thanks as always.
Previously, you seemed to be arguing that the views of the scientific organizations do not accurately reflect the views of most of their members. Now, I infer that you are arguing that maybe they do but that view might still be wrong (unless you are saying that the scientific organizations were out-of-step with their members in regard to tectonic drift). Let’s assume this account of history is correct (and I have read that the dismissal of Wegener by many at the time is actually more complicated than is often told), I still don’t see what it is supposed to tell us. Are we supposed to ignore the best scientific understanding at the time because it later may turn out to be wrong? Wouldn’t that be a recipe for never using science to make any policy decisions?
No…I am not saying that it must be untrue. However, what I am saying is that it is Marc Morano’s job to try to make as big a deal as possible about any controversy of this sort in the scientific community. I think you ought to admit that he is far from an objective source of information.
And, as for attacking the messenger, you have previously done the same thing in regards to the entire IPCC and various individual scientists. The difference between us that I see is you attack messengers who most of the scientific community believe are reasonably good and objective sources of information and I attack messengers like Morano who are not really taken seriously by the vast majority of the scientific community.
Well, if we had an objective account of what happened, perhaps I could. But, since the only account that you have provided is from someone who few people would consider objective, I have no idea. And, my guess is that the problem is not so much one of outright lies as it is about creating mountains out of molehills.
Actually, here is a paper about the statistics of such trends showing an individual model run that shows a 15-year period with a small negative trend. See also here.
Well, I wouldn’t think that the 90s in isolation would be a long enough period to say this conclusively. However, we now have about a 35 year period from the mid-1970s to the present with a warming trend that is highly statistically significant.
And, to you to.