I just posted this comment on Andy Revkin’s blog pending approval by the moderator.
Varied Views on Extreme Weather in a Warming Climate – NYTimes.com
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
Recent Comments
- arn on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Trevor on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- czechlist on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- arn on COP29 Preview
- arn on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- stewartpid on COP29 Preview
- GeologyJim on A Giant Eyesore
- GeologyJim on COP29 Preview
“This debate is presented as if one of the sides is making foolhardy statements…”
Mr Dessler, they are being very polite. The ‘other side of the debate’ is a polite way of saying ‘everyone else’ or ‘everyone else who is not a fool’.
The side making the foolhardy statements is ‘your side’. Hard to know what that translates to in the scientific community and the media, but I would say the ‘foolhardy side’ probably has 99% press coverage and makes up 1% of the scientific community.
A further observation for you Mr Dessler. If a small group of individuals such as yourself, make outrageous statements without scientific backing, there is actually no ‘debate’, You make it sounds like there is a 50-50% chance of you being correct. But the debate is not over the merits of your claims, but over whether you have any conceivable justification for making such assertions to begin with.