Max,
I’ve heard all this before. The science nuances are beaten to death here, they are interesting at times but we are talking about very small variations in a real world where it could always be something else, you never get to “all else equal” reality. We have been in the circle for 25 + years about what we really don’t know or can prove. There are no linear rules with proofs to build on at all. I don’t fault her position except there really is no co2 evidence or fingerprint at all. It’s all opinion and that leads to the bigger problem about those with opinions and who gets market a consensus of opinion as “SCIENCE”.
You don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to notice how the “advocates” all or many to share a rather noticable political cultures and spectrum that for whatever the reason seems completely taboo for our host to acknowledge other than abstractly and remotely. How is this fair, honest or truthful in a debate where huge social stakes are involved??
Why would people who engage in this level of obfuscation of the political demographics of their own peer groups garner “trust” as a starting or finishing point????
It’s both relevant and required if people wish to be taken seriously to acknowledge what is obvious about who is involved in the debate and what their general world view is politically. As too how political enclaves start and finish socially is interesting to talk about. That they can’t be identified in this case or can only be acknowledged as unaffiliated “advocates” is preposterous in scale and distortion.
Sorry Max, if the place is open for discussion and we are talking about “uncertainty” of climate impacts and UN projections this topic isn’t a special case or decorum violation when it’s rather obvious who and what the political nature is of Dr. Curry’s peers and that of the greater eco-pro-AGW wing. They share a very identifiable political culture. There would be of course a huge consequence within Dr. Curry’s peer group if she stated the obvious. That’s the nature of political correctness, in the long run it fails. You were either for or against the Berlin Wall, sadly that was a topic that could never be discussed openly for many years in within another politically correct protocal. If a party refuses to admit directly and specifically, political associations, cultures and trends in a very narrow “consensus” area of science study how is that crediable? It isn’t.