Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the historyWhen people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
"According to Google Scholar and Yokohama National University, Dr. Itoh has not published any work in the area of climate change in peer-reviewed science journals." (http://www.desmogblog.com/kiminori-itoh).
Also of interest is this which is the article which (for some reason) you seem to have copied verbatim. Not sure why, since the guy who was actually in the debate says:
I had a debate with a denier on Google+ the other day. He quoted 18 scientists to support his argument. But when I actually had a close look at them, they weren’t very persuasive. Of the 18, only 12 of the quotes were specifically denying man-made climate change. The rest were just peripheral. And of the 12 that specifically denied it, only 1 was from an actual climate scientist (Dr. Steven M. Japar).
Really, you shouldn't post things that can be so easily googled.
Unfortunately a large portion of our politicians would prefer to bury the issue under the rug and pretend they don't need to do anything, pretend there is controversy, pretend that the best course of action is to wait. They would prefer their job be about giving speeches and kissing babies, not tackling difficult problems.
While ever this situation continues we need to also continue to advocate for a continued, repeated effort to re-prove what we already know to be true, otherwise these people will never act.
The hypothesis is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; adding more of it to the atmosphere will cause the atmosphere to get warmer, and this is the primary driver of climate change from, say, 1900-2100. The greenhouse effect is undeniable, otherwise the Earth would be a very cold place. It's pretty damn certain that adding more greenhouse gases will cause warming. The problem is that the models (hypotheses of how Earth's climate system behaves) predict a much larger warming than has been observed. The models are run with a variety of emissions scenarios ranging from stopping virtually all carbon emissions (low end; little warming) to business as usual (high end; lots of warming). Our emissions have tracked at the high end of the range, yet temperatures are at the low end of the spread among models. While we're establishing records, they're not nearly as high as the models predict.
Turns out that this is not true. Not that it matters. To avoid "significant negative impacts" to the global economy and environment from climate change, we need to restrict the change to a maximum of 2-2.5 degrees from pre industrial baseline. We have already observed a change of approximately 1 degree. Which means we are halfway there already. It doesn't take anything other than high school maths to figure that we need to do something, and right now. The models are certainly useful, in predicting a large number of parameters (sea level, glacial behaviours, changes in weather patterns, etc.) they will help us save money by highlighting areas where we can mitigate against the effects of climate change. But they don't really contribute to proving the underlying hypothesis - that happened long ago.
No idea. We don't use nuclear in our country (although we probably should at least consider it, owing to the gargantuan amounts of raw materials we have).
If YOU THINK there is too much "regulatory red tape" in you particular region, then call it out. No point complaining about it on./.
however, climate denialists are not the ones trying to prove anything. the burden of proof lies on the ones making the claim.
That's right.
(A) Climate Denalists claim there's a problem with the science, it's up to them to prove that claim, the burden of proof, as you rightly point out, belongs to them.
(B) Climate denialists claim that mitigating our CO2 output will lead to the end of civilisation, it's up to them to prove that claim.
The problem with nuclear power is the cost. If you can find a way to make it cost competitive, then by all means, promote that idea. Complaining about it it doesn't seem like a useful strategy to solve the problem.
In any case, I am less concerned with the truth of the statement as I am with the effects and the proposed solutions. There's some pretty crazy shit out there for how people want to deal with the issue, some of it impossible unless you end modern civilization.
Yet, strangely, you can't enumerate what these ideas are, and describe how they would bring an end to our civilisation. It seems odd that you think we should be concerned about A problem that you can't or won't describe in enough detail to critically examine whether the problem you imagine even exists.
If the effect is that we get some more tornadoes and hurricanes and ice melt and all of that, its a problem but not insurmountable. We'd have to move people away from the seacoasts a bit and some island nations would cease to exist above the waves. Not good, but not worth chucking civilization for, since even more people would die or be extremely inconvenienced without it.
Again, what "civilisation ending" plan is actually being considered? Do you have any modelling to justify your conclusion that adapting the climate change will be cheaper and less disruptive than mitigating against it (given that the available modelling says otherwise)?
And most flat earthers can't provide evidence of same, which is why their narrative is based around conspiracy theory. Like anti-vaxxers, and climate denialists.
they are selling this hard. I mean when Einstein's theory of relativity was in question, did they take a survey and consider the matter settled? I mean that took nearly 40 years to have experimental proof, and they want to put it to bed now?
The theory of (CO2 forced) climate change has been around for 150 years. For the first 120, it wasn't particularly controversial. I'm not sure why we would consider it particularly controversial now, random guys on the internet trolling the science notwithstanding. Mostly because this makes for more views if the media frames it as a controversy, rather than merely pointing out what we've known for a long time which is that CO2 in the atmosphere impacts the climate, so changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere changes the climate. Sorry.
The point of highlighting the consensus is to ensure that people who want to dispute the established science understand that they need to provide proof.
The IPCC compared exactly this and found that the last 15 years was warmer than reality in 111 of 114 models. From this, I modestly suggested that is some evidence that we might want to expect the models are estimating on the high side.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. If you were able to confidently predict that the temperature would remain under what the models were projecting this means that 2 are correlated and the models are functioning correctly. Or, you yourself have a better model that you are using to achieve this confidence. Predicting things (as you have done) requires a model. If it didn't, we just use regression. We don't use regression, we use models. For your prediction to be any good, you must therefore be using a model. Where is this model?
The IPCC made no dispute with what my assessment.
Except for the bit where they completely contradicted you.
With us being very confident that things are warming and that our continued emissions will continue to contribute to the warming, we obviously SHOULD be taking action. With us lacking certainty on the severity of future warming, we should probably use past trends as a benchmark for the future and see what it tells us about the 'best guess' the models have. If you look at the IPCC evaluation of models [www.ipcc.ch] they include the following observation:...an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble...
The link you posted says:
The causes of both the observed GMST trend hiatus and of the model–observation GMST trend difference during 1998–2012 imply
that, barring a major volcanic eruption, most 15-year GMST trends in the near-term future will be larger than during 1998–2012
(high confidence; see 11.3.6.3. for a full assessment of near-term projections of GMST). The reasons for this implication are fourfold:
first, anthropogenic greenhouse-gas concentrations are expected to rise further in all RCP scenarios; second, anthropogenic aerosol
concentration is expected to decline in all RCP scenarios, and so is the resulting cooling effect; third, the trend in solar forcing is
expected to be larger over most near-term 15-year periods than over 1998–2012 (medium confidence), because 1998–2012 contained
the full downward phase of the solar cycle; and fourth, it is more likely than not that internal climate variability in the near-term will
enhance and not counteract the surface warming expected to arise from the increasing anthropogenic forcing.
In short, the link you posted contradicts your assertion, since the IPCC says that any variance in the models from the observed temperature for the last 15 years is not indicative of a long term trend differentiation, and the expectation is that the temperature will return to it's prior phase (which, roughly, is what happened)
Besides which, doesn't your methodology essentially involve drawing a regression line through past results and using that to estimate future temperatures? In which case, why would we use models at all? Does such a line actually correctly estimate past temperatures if we map backwards?
Of course, it doesn't matter if Bill Nye is a scientist, or an entertainer, or a milkman, or a gardner. He is merely reporting what the science says. As am I. You on the other hand, have chosen to dispute what the science says. That requires you to counter Arrhenius with better science. What are your scientific credentials?
To quote myself from another conversation in this thread:
Depends on the context. In this context, a small number of people dispute the science. If I quote the works of Bohr or Einstein or Webb, and someone random guys says "I don't believe you" then what is that to me? Am I responsible for his stupidity? No, really Nye and others are being unnecessarily polite: saying "this science is widely accepted" is not proving that the science is true, is doesn't need to be re-proven by Nye. It is a polite way of reminding deniers that their "doubt" is irrelevant both as science, and as a social construct. To disprove the hypothesis scientifically, deniers merely need to provide evidence that it is wrong. To disprove it sociologically (i.e. convince us to do nothing) they merely need to provide a compelling argument.
Neither of these things has actually been done, or even attempted, in the 20 years since denying the science became a thing.
If you were discussing the science and offering materials to forward your argument rather than making personal attacks you would make much more progress in convincing people to consider your point of view.
I'm not engaged in an attempt to convince people to consider my point of view because (as Bill Nye has helpfully pointed out) the number of people who matter and who are not convinced by the science is vanishingly small, and getting smaller, and their view is their problem, not mine. There are already mechanisms in place to ensure that they will pay their due along with some extra for delaying the process, when the time comes. It's a solved problem,
Rather, this conversation is about your assertion that the science says something other than our greenhouse gases is causing the current climate anomaly.
Saying I am right and you are wrong and that makes you ( fill in the blank ) for not accepting whatever ( name of the latest marinate ) has said on the subject.
I'm not saying I'm right. Your argument is with the science. You said the science was wrong. I have no reason to accept that the science is wrong from someone who doesn't even know what the science says or where it comes from.
I find your strategy for convincing us that the science is wrong to be a bit of a puzzle. How does chucking a tizz convince us? How does saying "I'm not convinced by the science" convince us that the science is wrong?
Sounds to me like your argument is a bit of a burden of proof fallacy.
I find it hard to believe that CO2 as a causative factor in climate change has been adequately proven based on the information I have found.
Information which apparently you lost again because when challenged to show us this information so we may critique it, you chose to pivot to your own ignorance of the subject instead. Very believable.
I never said I had disproved anything.
Righto. What's your timeframes on this? Should we expect your working by the end of the week? By August?
Next year some time?
I said that I doubt the science behind it, and suspect those who stand to profit of pushing their own 'beachfront property in Nevada' scheme.
When called upon to show us a meaningful basis for this doubt, so we may critique it, you chose to pivot to your own ignorance of the subject instead. Very believable.
I know the answers to the questions I posed above.
Really? Didn't you just say that the experimental observations in relation to the radiative properties of CO2 (Fourier. Tyndal et al.) took place in a greenhouse ?
It's argument behavior. Whenever I have economics discussions, I cite particular things I've studied and analyzed. I don't just state that other people believe me and so that's good enough.
Depends on the context. In this context, a small number of people dispute the science. If I quote the works of Bohr or Einstein or Webb, and someone random guys says "I don't believe you" then what is that to me? Am I responsible for his stupidity? No, really Nye and others are being unnecessarily polite: saying "this science is widely accepted" is not proving that the science is true, is doesn't need to be re-proven by Nye. It is a polite way of reminding deniers that their "doubt" is irrelevant both as science, and as a social construct. To disprove the hypothesis scientifically, deniers merely need to provide evidence that it is wrong. To disprove it sociologically (i.e. convince us to do nothing) they merely need to provide a compelling argument.
Neither of these things has actually been done, or even attempted, in the 20 years since denying the science became a thing.
The game has been about money, which is where people hate and label people deniers.
It is interesting to think about this hate because it begun as being merely non-plussed that 100 year old science was suddenly in dispute, to mild irritation and some anger when leading scientists were defamed and defunded in an attempt to silence them, climatologists receiving death threats aimed at themselves and their kids etc. for merely mentioning the self evident and obvious problem that adding more climate forcers into the climate will change climate behaviour (of course it will). Now it is turning to fury, and widespread fury at that. Angry mobs are not out of the question.
I've long suspected that the deniers secretly think that if they can hold out long enough then someone will offer them an olive branch, a compromise will be reached ("let's say that methane is a greenhouse gas, but CO2 isn't any more" or something like that). But of course climate change becomes more evident, and more serious, the longer we delay action. So all that is happening is that their numbers are dwindling and exposing the power brokers who were shielded by the numbers, and the ordinary plebs who accept the science are just getting more and more furious.
I think they should just cut and run ("me? no, I always thought the science was right"). What's the point of clinging on at this point?
This is exactly what the alarmists do. They show evidence for actual climate change, which is real, then pretend it's because of CO2, which it absolutely isn't.
What IS causing the climate anomaly then? Or is providing actual evidence and explanations the department of some mysterious other? When will we be able to speak to the other guy?
Slashdot Mirror
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the historyWhen people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
"According to Google Scholar and Yokohama National University, Dr. Itoh has not published any work in the area of climate change in peer-reviewed science journals." (http://www.desmogblog.com/kiminori-itoh).
Also of interest is this which is the article which (for some reason) you seem to have copied verbatim. Not sure why, since the guy who was actually in the debate says:
I had a debate with a denier on Google+ the other day. He quoted 18 scientists to support his argument. But when I actually had a close look at them, they weren’t very persuasive. Of the 18, only 12 of the quotes were specifically denying man-made climate change. The rest were just peripheral. And of the 12 that specifically denied it, only 1 was from an actual climate scientist (Dr. Steven M. Japar).
Really, you shouldn't post things that can be so easily googled.
While ever this situation continues we need to also continue to advocate for a continued, repeated effort to re-prove what we already know to be true, otherwise these people will never act.
the only reason it is expensive is because of the draconian regulatory structure.
Then fix it.
Not to mention there aren't trillions in green energy subsidies.
Then advocate for more green energy subsidies.
The hypothesis is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; adding more of it to the atmosphere will cause the atmosphere to get warmer, and this is the primary driver of climate change from, say, 1900-2100. The greenhouse effect is undeniable, otherwise the Earth would be a very cold place. It's pretty damn certain that adding more greenhouse gases will cause warming. The problem is that the models (hypotheses of how Earth's climate system behaves) predict a much larger warming than has been observed. The models are run with a variety of emissions scenarios ranging from stopping virtually all carbon emissions (low end; little warming) to business as usual (high end; lots of warming). Our emissions have tracked at the high end of the range, yet temperatures are at the low end of the spread among models. While we're establishing records, they're not nearly as high as the models predict.
Turns out that this is not true. Not that it matters. To avoid "significant negative impacts" to the global economy and environment from climate change, we need to restrict the change to a maximum of 2-2.5 degrees from pre industrial baseline. We have already observed a change of approximately 1 degree. Which means we are halfway there already. It doesn't take anything other than high school maths to figure that we need to do something, and right now. The models are certainly useful, in predicting a large number of parameters (sea level, glacial behaviours, changes in weather patterns, etc.) they will help us save money by highlighting areas where we can mitigate against the effects of climate change. But they don't really contribute to proving the underlying hypothesis - that happened long ago.
No idea. We don't use nuclear in our country (although we probably should at least consider it, owing to the gargantuan amounts of raw materials we have). If YOU THINK there is too much "regulatory red tape" in you particular region, then call it out. No point complaining about it on ./.
however, climate denialists are not the ones trying to prove anything. the burden of proof lies on the ones making the claim.
That's right.
(A) Climate Denalists claim there's a problem with the science, it's up to them to prove that claim, the burden of proof, as you rightly point out, belongs to them.
(B) Climate denialists claim that mitigating our CO2 output will lead to the end of civilisation, it's up to them to prove that claim.
The problem with nuclear power is the cost. If you can find a way to make it cost competitive, then by all means, promote that idea. Complaining about it it doesn't seem like a useful strategy to solve the problem.
In any case, I am less concerned with the truth of the statement as I am with the effects and the proposed solutions. There's some pretty crazy shit out there for how people want to deal with the issue, some of it impossible unless you end modern civilization.
Yet, strangely, you can't enumerate what these ideas are, and describe how they would bring an end to our civilisation. It seems odd that you think we should be concerned about A problem that you can't or won't describe in enough detail to critically examine whether the problem you imagine even exists.
If the effect is that we get some more tornadoes and hurricanes and ice melt and all of that, its a problem but not insurmountable. We'd have to move people away from the seacoasts a bit and some island nations would cease to exist above the waves. Not good, but not worth chucking civilization for, since even more people would die or be extremely inconvenienced without it.
Again, what "civilisation ending" plan is actually being considered? Do you have any modelling to justify your conclusion that adapting the climate change will be cheaper and less disruptive than mitigating against it (given that the available modelling says otherwise)?
And most flat earthers can't provide evidence of same, which is why their narrative is based around conspiracy theory. Like anti-vaxxers, and climate denialists.
they are selling this hard. I mean when Einstein's theory of relativity was in question, did they take a survey and consider the matter settled? I mean that took nearly 40 years to have experimental proof, and they want to put it to bed now?
The theory of (CO2 forced) climate change has been around for 150 years. For the first 120, it wasn't particularly controversial. I'm not sure why we would consider it particularly controversial now, random guys on the internet trolling the science notwithstanding. Mostly because this makes for more views if the media frames it as a controversy, rather than merely pointing out what we've known for a long time which is that CO2 in the atmosphere impacts the climate, so changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere changes the climate. Sorry.
The point of highlighting the consensus is to ensure that people who want to dispute the established science understand that they need to provide proof.
Sure - in which case, you'll have no trouble pointing out actual examples of bias in the site.
You do realise that random shmucks posting stuff on slashdot doesn't constitute science?
No that's a list of things that no one knows all though some have pretended to.
So prove it. Prove that nobody actually understands the climate.
The IPCC compared exactly this and found that the last 15 years was warmer than reality in 111 of 114 models. From this, I modestly suggested that is some evidence that we might want to expect the models are estimating on the high side.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. If you were able to confidently predict that the temperature would remain under what the models were projecting this means that 2 are correlated and the models are functioning correctly. Or, you yourself have a better model that you are using to achieve this confidence. Predicting things (as you have done) requires a model. If it didn't, we just use regression. We don't use regression, we use models. For your prediction to be any good, you must therefore be using a model. Where is this model?
The IPCC made no dispute with what my assessment.
Except for the bit where they completely contradicted you.
With us being very confident that things are warming and that our continued emissions will continue to contribute to the warming, we obviously SHOULD be taking action. With us lacking certainty on the severity of future warming, we should probably use past trends as a benchmark for the future and see what it tells us about the 'best guess' the models have. If you look at the IPCC evaluation of models [www.ipcc.ch] they include the following observation: ...an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble...
The link you posted says:
The causes of both the observed GMST trend hiatus and of the model–observation GMST trend difference during 1998–2012 imply that, barring a major volcanic eruption, most 15-year GMST trends in the near-term future will be larger than during 1998–2012 (high confidence; see 11.3.6.3. for a full assessment of near-term projections of GMST). The reasons for this implication are fourfold: first, anthropogenic greenhouse-gas concentrations are expected to rise further in all RCP scenarios; second, anthropogenic aerosol concentration is expected to decline in all RCP scenarios, and so is the resulting cooling effect; third, the trend in solar forcing is expected to be larger over most near-term 15-year periods than over 1998–2012 (medium confidence), because 1998–2012 contained the full downward phase of the solar cycle; and fourth, it is more likely than not that internal climate variability in the near-term will enhance and not counteract the surface warming expected to arise from the increasing anthropogenic forcing.
In short, the link you posted contradicts your assertion, since the IPCC says that any variance in the models from the observed temperature for the last 15 years is not indicative of a long term trend differentiation, and the expectation is that the temperature will return to it's prior phase (which, roughly, is what happened)
Besides which, doesn't your methodology essentially involve drawing a regression line through past results and using that to estimate future temperatures? In which case, why would we use models at all? Does such a line actually correctly estimate past temperatures if we map backwards?
So, if homeslice buys carbon offsets (or whatever it is that you're advocating that he do), those 10 billion people will be immortal?
Maybe you should, I dunno, read the post before commenting on it?
Of course, it doesn't matter if Bill Nye is a scientist, or an entertainer, or a milkman, or a gardner. He is merely reporting what the science says. As am I. You on the other hand, have chosen to dispute what the science says. That requires you to counter Arrhenius with better science. What are your scientific credentials?
To quote myself from another conversation in this thread:
Depends on the context. In this context, a small number of people dispute the science. If I quote the works of Bohr or Einstein or Webb, and someone random guys says "I don't believe you" then what is that to me? Am I responsible for his stupidity? No, really Nye and others are being unnecessarily polite: saying "this science is widely accepted" is not proving that the science is true, is doesn't need to be re-proven by Nye. It is a polite way of reminding deniers that their "doubt" is irrelevant both as science, and as a social construct. To disprove the hypothesis scientifically, deniers merely need to provide evidence that it is wrong. To disprove it sociologically (i.e. convince us to do nothing) they merely need to provide a compelling argument.
Neither of these things has actually been done, or even attempted, in the 20 years since denying the science became a thing.
If you were discussing the science and offering materials to forward your argument rather than making personal attacks you would make much more progress in convincing people to consider your point of view.
I'm not engaged in an attempt to convince people to consider my point of view because (as Bill Nye has helpfully pointed out) the number of people who matter and who are not convinced by the science is vanishingly small, and getting smaller, and their view is their problem, not mine. There are already mechanisms in place to ensure that they will pay their due along with some extra for delaying the process, when the time comes. It's a solved problem,
Rather, this conversation is about your assertion that the science says something other than our greenhouse gases is causing the current climate anomaly.
Saying I am right and you are wrong and that makes you ( fill in the blank ) for not accepting whatever ( name of the latest marinate ) has said on the subject.
I'm not saying I'm right. Your argument is with the science. You said the science was wrong. I have no reason to accept that the science is wrong from someone who doesn't even know what the science says or where it comes from.
Sounds to me like your argument is a bit of a burden of proof fallacy.
I find it hard to believe that CO2 as a causative factor in climate change has been adequately proven based on the information I have found.
Information which apparently you lost again because when challenged to show us this information so we may critique it, you chose to pivot to your own ignorance of the subject instead. Very believable.
I never said I had disproved anything.
Righto. What's your timeframes on this? Should we expect your working by the end of the week? By August?
Next year some time?
I said that I doubt the science behind it, and suspect those who stand to profit of pushing their own 'beachfront property in Nevada' scheme.
When called upon to show us a meaningful basis for this doubt, so we may critique it, you chose to pivot to your own ignorance of the subject instead. Very believable.
I know the answers to the questions I posed above.
Really? Didn't you just say that the experimental observations in relation to the radiative properties of CO2 (Fourier. Tyndal et al.) took place in a greenhouse ?
It's argument behavior. Whenever I have economics discussions, I cite particular things I've studied and analyzed. I don't just state that other people believe me and so that's good enough.
Depends on the context. In this context, a small number of people dispute the science. If I quote the works of Bohr or Einstein or Webb, and someone random guys says "I don't believe you" then what is that to me? Am I responsible for his stupidity? No, really Nye and others are being unnecessarily polite: saying "this science is widely accepted" is not proving that the science is true, is doesn't need to be re-proven by Nye. It is a polite way of reminding deniers that their "doubt" is irrelevant both as science, and as a social construct. To disprove the hypothesis scientifically, deniers merely need to provide evidence that it is wrong. To disprove it sociologically (i.e. convince us to do nothing) they merely need to provide a compelling argument.
Neither of these things has actually been done, or even attempted, in the 20 years since denying the science became a thing.
I'll get on running them as soon as you can tell me if they're correct.
Your entire argument is that they are not correct. If you didn't know, why not just say so?
Are clouds still just a fudge factor?
Download the code and notes on methodology and find out.
If you feed past results to they actually accurately predict the past observed behavior?
Why not run them and find out?
Cuz if they haven't managed those yet there's real no point running them again.
That's entirely the reason for running them - to demonstrate that your allegations are true. You couldn't be more wrong.
The game has been about money, which is where people hate and label people deniers.
It is interesting to think about this hate because it begun as being merely non-plussed that 100 year old science was suddenly in dispute, to mild irritation and some anger when leading scientists were defamed and defunded in an attempt to silence them, climatologists receiving death threats aimed at themselves and their kids etc. for merely mentioning the self evident and obvious problem that adding more climate forcers into the climate will change climate behaviour (of course it will). Now it is turning to fury, and widespread fury at that. Angry mobs are not out of the question.
I've long suspected that the deniers secretly think that if they can hold out long enough then someone will offer them an olive branch, a compromise will be reached ("let's say that methane is a greenhouse gas, but CO2 isn't any more" or something like that). But of course climate change becomes more evident, and more serious, the longer we delay action. So all that is happening is that their numbers are dwindling and exposing the power brokers who were shielded by the numbers, and the ordinary plebs who accept the science are just getting more and more furious.
I think they should just cut and run ("me? no, I always thought the science was right"). What's the point of clinging on at this point?
The models do NOT have strong evidence to help us predict the impacts of climate change.
So in fact, the outcome could be worse than what the models are predicting?
And THIS is the reason we should do nothing?
This is exactly what the alarmists do. They show evidence for actual climate change, which is real, then pretend it's because of CO2, which it absolutely isn't.
What IS causing the climate anomaly then? Or is providing actual evidence and explanations the department of some mysterious other? When will we be able to speak to the other guy?