More typical GWPF halo tactics.
If you can, claim you’re a Lord. Then, in the House of Lords. If you’re a commoner, then claim you’re in the House of Commons.
If you can’t be credible, pretend to be.
If you can’t debate substantive climate science, put up a ‘climate alarm’ straw man and debate that.
Where you can’t meet the evidence, observations, research and discussions of people who soundly disprove your case, then turn to the ‘complaints of those supporting alarm’.
One asks, which of Hoskins, Mitchell, Palmer, Shine and Wolff does the GWPF not have considerable respect for? It may help inform us who the GWPF pack intend to cull next.
After such a start, how is “..constructive exchanges are new in the field of global warming, and, perhaps, represent a return to the normal process of scientific discourse,” anything but stark hypocrisy narcissistically covering a huge error of fact?
Global warming discourses among tens of thousands of civil, earnest, willing participants have gone on for over a quarter century. Civility, sincerity and willingness to be guided by science is hardly an invention of the GWPF. Indeed, it appears the GWPF regard these traits as anathema, by their watermelon-flinging comportment overall.
And what’s with the GWPF telling readers what should be and who should believe, see, and do what? Isn’t that up to, I dunno, the readers to decide?
“..the only thing that is unambiguous is precisely the claimed large measure of ignorance needed to maintain the possibility of risk. As usual, no attention is given to the possibility that the response will be much smaller.”
What an appallingly irrational statement.
Does the GWPF not even know what the word RISK means? It’s entirely the possibility that the response will be much smaller, up to as large as the RISK.
And a whole paragraph of blah-blah-blah that so wildly mischaracterises the statistical understanding we do have of the temperature record, painstakingly mined from improvised collections of data from weather stations to put to some climatological use as to be window dressing on deception and flim-flam and no more.. disappointing. A man who rents rooms in the House of Commons ought behave better.
“..there is little question that Arctic sea-ice has been subject to large variations in the pre-satellite past. Of course, the more important question is what these changes actually have to do with increasing CO2, and this question remains open simply because the small changes in summer sea ice can have a number of causes.”
Wow. Just wow.
We almost certainly have enough weather records, both in actual recorded observations of temperature and precipitation and in historical compilations of extreme conditions as the likes of tonyb ably collate to know if such weather as Dr. Curry recently proved would result from so much Arctic sea ice loss had actually happened.
We can be pretty definite from the massive consilience of evidence that at least a millennium has passed since last the Arctic sea ice extent had anything like its current retreat. The GWPF would have us ignore this, or would conflate and obscure the best evidence, as it flies in the face of the GWPF’s raison d’etre: objection to conclusions they don’t want to believe.
For the GWPF to transparently clothe themselves in the whited sheets of the scientific method they so vainly seek to entomb in their polemics, dogma and deception is just amazingly shameless.
And people wonder why I compare the GWPF to what crawls out from under a rock.