More of my interview with Ben Santer, from last month in San Francisco.
Santer explains the various reasons for variation between model projections and temperature measurements.
More of my interview with Ben Santer, from last month in San Francisco.
Santer explains the various reasons for variation between model projections and temperature measurements.
Much of what Ben has to say is quite agreeable.
However, the notion that 1998 as a starting point was cherry-picked is simple wrong.
Today is the starting point. Then a least-squares fit to a zero-slope line is performed. That process ends in 1998 going backward in time.
I noticed that after the video ended, the viewing options on the screen were largely denier sites. Can this sort of thing be manipulated to downplay the information you have presented?
so far as I know, it’s a youtube robot that does it, but like anything else, it can probably be jiggered. More likely they are just good at tagging vids, and the robot can’t tell denial from science-based.
Don’t know that much about it, but could it be the same type of algorithm that puts WUWT links at the top of so many searches?—-you know, “the most viewed climate bullshit site on the web” just because so many ignorant denier lemmings go there? That’s why the Gasbag Limbaugh show has so many listeners—maggots multiply on rotting meat.
The robot could be putting up things as “top” that have merely been repeated endlessly in the denier echo chamber by just a few with no regard for accuracy. You’re right that the robot can’t tell science-based from denial with its present programming, and it would be hard to program it to do so—it simply counts rather than evaluates, and the endlessly repeated BS will move denialist crap to the top of any list—all the more reason for having more real science climate blogs and vids and spreading them widely—-need to drown out the BS from the deniers.
I can’t find the figure in my AR5 report now but I assume that IPCC drew a “most likely” line in the uncertainty range for the next ~100 years. If so, they have no business doing that because climate scientists say that “natural variability” (which can run into decades) has a big effect. IPCC should have placed 4 big blobs in the uncertainty range, one per 30 years, no line.