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
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- arn on HUD Climate Advisor
- spren on HUD Climate Advisor
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
“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.