-- by Horatio Algeranon
The only thing certain with the science of climate
Is that some will continue to nickel and dime it.
Is that some will continue to nickel and dime it.
Twisting the words that the scientists utter,
Dragging them through the proverbial gutter.
Acting as "interpreters of interpretations"
Mangling meanings with transliterations:
"The science isn't settled" means "The science is settled".
"Not knowing everything" means "Knowing nothing"
"Paper rejected" means "Reviewers connected"
"Hogwash exclusion" means "Active collusion"
"Study of oceans" means "Preconceived notions"
"Tree-ring temp proxy" means "Dead orthodoxy"
"Hockey stick samples" means "Scandalous examples"
"Support for consensus" means "Funds for expenses"
"Target for warming" means "Political swarming"
"Science defenses" means "Criminal offenses".
The Monster is certain, as certain can be
To savage the scientists most viciously.
For context, see Tamino's post "Not a Misquote. A Nonquote"
... and scientists are simultaneously accused (falsely) of having claimed that "The science is settled" as Gavin Schmidt just was even when they have explicitly claimed just the opposite as Gavin Schmidt did some time ago when he said he agreed that the "The science isn't settled."
But of course, as Horatio and others have noted "Not knowing everything is not knowing nothing" (another simple idea that many seem to have difficulty with).
As Sherlock Holmes once said to a climate change "skeptic", "Your logic, my dear Sir, is simply unpackable."
"Hockey stick samples" means "Scandalous examples"
"Support for consensus" means "Funds for expenses"
"Target for warming" means "Political swarming"
"Science defenses" means "Criminal offenses".
The Monster is certain, as certain can be
To savage the scientists most viciously.
For context, see Tamino's post "Not a Misquote. A Nonquote"
Horatio finds it particularly "interesting" (and more than a little illogical) that climate scientists are regularly faulted for being quite honestly "uncertain" at some specified confidence level about the various aspects of the science while simultaneously being (falsely) accused of having claimed that "The science is settled" (i.e., effectively 100% certainty).
For example, scientists are criticized for not being able to "nail down" climate sensitivity ( the amount by which global temperature increases for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) and therefore always reporting a "range" of values into which sensitivity likely falls ("2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C", according to the latest IPCC report)
... and scientists are simultaneously accused (falsely) of having claimed that "The science is settled" as Gavin Schmidt just was even when they have explicitly claimed just the opposite as Gavin Schmidt did some time ago when he said he agreed that the "The science isn't settled."
But of course, as Horatio and others have noted "Not knowing everything is not knowing nothing" (another simple idea that many seem to have difficulty with).
As Sherlock Holmes once said to a climate change "skeptic", "Your logic, my dear Sir, is simply unpackable."
