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
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
- “4th Hottest Summer”
- Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
- Bob G on “4th Hottest Summer”
- Ulric Lyons on “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Gordon Vigurs on Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- Gordon Vigurs on Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- Tel on Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- Bob G on Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- conrad ziefle on “getting smaller”
- arn on Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- czechlist on Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
“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.