‘IPCC was not right’: Warmists Frame & Stone’s claims ignore main IPCC predictions — ‘Why did Nature publish this strawman letter? ‘Effort in selective focus, logical fallacies, & circular reasoning’
'TThey ignore the main UN IPCC predictions (the prominent ones, with graphs, in the Summary for Policymakers) They don't measure the IPCC success against an IPCC graph or within IPCC defined 'uncertainties'. They measure success against a “zero trend” — something they defined as any rise at all beyond what they say are the limits of natural variability (which they got from the very models that aren't working too well). Circular reasoning anyone?'
Frame and Stone themselves say the IPCC models didn’t include important forcings, and may have been “right” by accident. Why did Nature publish this strawman letter? It’s an award-winning effort in selective focus, logical fallacies, and circular reasoning to be sure, but does it advance our understanding of the natural world? Not so. Frame and Stone have produced a Letter to Nature saying that 3 is a lot like 6 (they are both larger than zero). If you ignore the Summary for Policymakers, pick a line […]Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)