Tom Fuller posted this at WUWT: The League of 2.5 in which he argues that we start being honest about what we know about what temperatures are going to be doing in the next 90 years.
My reaction is: We should have been stating it this way all along. Scientists should be stating openly that all their caveats that are usually deep within MSM articles aren’t just them being cautious. Those caveats are real: All the claims being made ARE just “the best we can figure out now.” Since day one on the global warming issue what he has said is exactly true. Models are not reality; they are simulating reality “the best we can do right now.” Projections out to 2100 in and of themselves are NOT going to torch the Earth.
So far one of the real realities is that if the average temps have only varied by a degree or so, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? Humans will adapt. There is not one person present on either side that can tell the difference between (Average) and (Average+0.5C). And 75% of us can barely tell the difference between (Average) and (Average+2.5C).
Claims that we need to do something NOW are not based on anything but conjecture. So Tom’s suggestion about the error bars would at least tell people, “This is how much confidence we have in what projections we can make.” And then we should let people go on with their lives.
The biggest piece of crap about this whole thing is that it has people worried about something they didn’t even know was happening in their own lives. People should take notice as to how all the heinous calamities are going to happen somewhere else. NONE of it except the now disproven claims about hurricanes getting worse are going to happen in the USA, for example. Europe? Are they going to freeze their bums off like last winter or sweat a lot like during some Wimbledons? Some of both. Whoop dee freaking doo.
We’ve wasted WAY too much time on this. Sometimes I think the warmists thought, “No one is organized enough to rebut our claims, so let’s just keep making them to scare people; it’s been good for business, so why stop here? The more we claim, the more government grants we get. We aren’t stupid. We DO know which side our bread is buttered on.” SO they kept piling it on – right up to and after Climategate. But Climategate got a lot more people listening with a jaundiced ear, and the claims were seen for the exaggerations that they were – and always have been.
Tom is just saying, “Let’s stop exaggerating how much we think we know. Let’s be honest with people about the risk of catastrophe and how long it might take for it to happen.”
Yes, people on both sides can quibble about what Tom is saying here, about particular points he has stated. It is that quibble factor that is the uncertainty. If people can – and do – argue about whether the facts are correct, and whether our understanding is correct, then almost by definition the science is NOT settled and teh confidence level must be fairly low. No matter what certainty some individuals have, as long as there are counter-arguers, their certainty is personal, not universal.
The problem with that was that until the blogs kicked in, only one side had a forum: the main stream news media. The world was dependent on which scientists the science editors were talking to – and those editors were controlling the dialog, because they had taken sides on the issue. And they were only telling one side of the arguments.
Now that it is plain that the other side has a voice, too, the balance has changed. And with that comes a reassessment of WHAT WE KNOW. SOME of the editors are now talking to THE OTHER SIDE and finding out that, yes, there is some counter evidence that can be brought into the fray. That evidence was there all along. And it argues that maybe that one side wasn’t giving us the whole story. But the whole story really is this: There is a LOT we don’t know.
A lot of what we don’t know is stuff we haven’t even thought of . 14 years ago we didn’t know about the PDO or the AMO. What is out there now that we don’t know? Certainly we don’t know about the specifics of water vapor and its ways of affecting the temperature. What else? Let’s be honest about what we don’t know.
Tom is just saying that we should be honest about WHAT WE KNOW and WHAT WE DON’T KNOW.
What a novel idea.
Why has it taken 25 years to get to this point?