in fact it seems more honest and clear. most of climatologist says that today we cannot have an increase of extremevent with so tiny temperature increase... it is wheather, or their model are wrong... It is a bit inconvenient that their "fanclub" in newspaper propaged scare mongering to gain includence and convince...
another point is not really acknowledge at the bottom line, but in AR5 body : - the model are broken, and no progress have been done to modelise the clouds and similare challenges - the sensitivity is much lower than expected (despite some scaremonger alarms that press love and replicate). value is probably around 1.3-1.7 - temperature is stalled since 2 decade, making the averale look like 200 years... - ice cap are regrowing - islands are not geting flooded faster than since 200 years, even less... and Darwin know that isloand float on the ocean virtually, because soild is added or removed depending on altitude... - impact on many domaine, like malaria, wars, is exagerated if not invented... I'm not sure they are wrong , but I am sure that this science is broken by politics and funding, that it is more corrupted than APS, and that there are many Lewis who get Nobel and tenure, if not Tesla-S, because of such opportunist beliefs... it is funny to see them jump on a simple criticized papers to justify the hiatus, while they ask for many paper replications for opposite thesis... they bend the past temperature like MIT bent calibration... It remind me something. anyway in that business, the luck is that the second team have understood the game and is learning how to play with the same tricks... it is honest like a catch match in jelly. Bad point is that it will never end since it is not refutable at realistic horizon. Hopefully real or not all is solved. good point to make peace and enjoy the meal. 2014/1/9 James Bowery <[email protected]> > One may rightly be suspicious of institutional authorities' definition of > "appeal to authority" as logical fallacy due merely to a conflict of > interest -- particularly when we have before us the stark raving > authoritative denunciation of cold fusion held by "99% of authorities". > Toward this end, I direct your attention to the origin of the modern > notion of "appeal to authority" as logical fallacy: > > "When men are established in any kind of dignity, it is thought a breach > of 'modesty' for others to derogate any way from it, and question the > authority of men who are in possession of it." > http://books.google.com/books?id=ZF0XAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA446&lpg=PA446 > > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> "The extreme temperature in both hemispheres are caused by global >>> warming. >>> Many people opposed to climatology fail to realize that." >>> >>> Jed, this is a figment of post normal science. There is absolutely no >>> proof for what you say >>> and I have been following it for years. >> >> >> This is your opinion versus the expertise of 99% of climatologists. I >> cannot judge but I suppose they are right and you are wrong. Before anyone >> says otherwise, let me point out that is NOT an appeal to authority. See: >> >> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html >> >> >> >>> Even the UK Met Office (ever ready to knock back climate >>> alarmism) says: >>> >>> “Climate change happens on a global scale, and weather happens at a >>> local scale. Climate scientists have been saying that for quite a while. >>> >>> “It’s impossible to say that these storms are more intense because of >>> climate change.” >>> >> >> Whereas the Japanese Meteorologic Agency just said this storm probably is >> a direct effect of global warming. I expect they are right. >> >> >
