Apropos of our recent discussion on impenetrable scientific writing, this disguised admission from the IPCC's most recent Special Report on Extremes:
FAQ 3.1 Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme? . . . None of the above instruments has yet been developed sufficiently as to allow us to confidently answer the question posed here. Thus we are restricted to questions about whether specific extremes are becoming more or less common, and our confidence in the answers to such questions, including the direction and magnitude of changes in specific extremes, depends on the type of extreme, as well as on the region and season, linked with the level of understanding of the underlying processes and the reliability of their simulation in models. . . .Which pretty much amounts to: "Actually, as it turns out, we have no clue." So much for Anthropogenic GlobalThere is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change . . . . The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados . . . . The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses.
H/t Watt's up with That.
And by the way, Perry kicks the EPA's butt in Texas. The EPA had the same reaction as the IPCC to the pointed question from the EPA, "What's your legal authority?" Response: Your Honor, we got nuthin.
It's a shame he didn't do better in the primary. He had a pretty good record to run on; but we are where we are.
ReplyDelete"IPCC's most recent Special Report on Extremes:"
ReplyDeleteOK, I hear/see IPCC, I immediately think of these guys.
"It's a shame he didn't do better in the primary. He had a pretty good record to run on; but we are where we are."
Record schmekerd, he didn't speak purty enough, quickly enough, and had not been sufficiently coached on the how to's. That seems to be what matters most.