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
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- conrad ziefle on “pushing nature past its limits”
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- John Francis on Mission Accomplished
- Mike on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Timo, not that one! on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Bill on Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Gamecock on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Gamecock on “pushing nature past its limits”
- William on Mission Accomplished
“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.