No strawman to the REAL argument here - which is a political argument pressing policy agendas, NOT the "scientific" one being flogged as a judas goat. That the current understanding and model performance lacks adequate certainty and credibility to support the radical and precipitous diversions of scarce societal resources being advocated by the warmistas is hard, cold political FACT and CERTAIN REALITY you guys would do better to get over yourselves on, face up to, and quit trying to hand-wave away.<quoted text>
Estimates of climate sensitivity have always contained uncertainty- this is clearly stated. Straw man argument.
Explain why they're currently off by a factor of two and fix them instead of whining about "deniers" who are simply pointing at your half-naked Emperor.
"May be?" "Over the coming decades?" Getting a bit ahead of ourselves, aren't we? Whence this fantastic faith in a coming sea change (no pun intended) in the future validity of these models, when you cannot and will not acknowledge their crap performance in the here & now, absent agreement on why they're performing poorly in the near-term, other than to whine "it's hard and complicated?"<quoted text>This new report says that models may be 20% too high over coming decades- not "wildly inaccurate". Exaggeration.
Let's start with the clear and present fact the models are out of whack by a factor of two over what is becoming a 2-decadal period, and all we've got is speculative theories why.
Perhaps in the "scientific" debate being used as cover and a judas goat for a variety of political agendas - but in that - the REAL world, the REAL argument, no straw man at all - UNCERTAINTY is the central point in the POLITICAL argument that's really at issue here. And the models and now clearly exaggerated jeremiads based on them lack credibility.<quoted text>
Estimates of climate sensitivity have always contained uncertainty- this is clearly stated. Straw man argument ... Scientists have always admitted that ocean circulation patterns are hard to model and contain uncertainties. Straw man. There is a debate in the scientific community about what will happen over the next few years. Some scientists believe the deeper ocean could stop absorbing heat and we might not see reduced warming at all. Straw man and ignoring the complexities of the argument.
Your opinion.<quoted text>
There is debate over what will happen in the long term. Some scientists believe the climate sensitivity figure needs to come down by 30%; others put more trust in the paleoclimate data. Straw man and ignoring the complexities of the deabte.
Even the scientists who think the climate sensitivity figure needs to come down still recognise that we are putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere that we need to reduce emissions.
You consistently ignore what science and scientists say in favour of your own stupid straw man arguments.
You're a ranting ideologue blind to rational evidence.
Your advice is foolish and dangerous to future generations.
As far as the long-term is concerned, mine is that wealth creation in the world - especially the un- and under-developed world - is going to be FAR more critical to enable them to cope with coming climate change than the dog's breakfast of mostly silly and completely impractical reactionary political agendas being flogged by AGW jihadis in the name of "we must do something now!!"
You want people to listen to the science? Get out of denial yourself, acknowledge the models are sucking right now at matching observed data, and fix them.