Real Climate: Simple Question, Simple Answer… Not

I see that my point (#10) is more or less repeated by other commentators (eg #53 and #58).

Gavin: you reply to #53: “Why should anyone continue to discuss with you?”

If you really want to communicate, then you better find a way of communicating. If on the other hand you don’t want to communicate, there is little point in replying to comments, really.

In fact you remind me of those English-speaking tourists arriving back home in frustration, convinced that the locals they visited are brainless idiots, after having shouted, yelled, huffed and puffed to make themselves understood…by people that simply do not speak English.

If you or Mr Weart want to speak to engineers, or anybody else, then you both better speak in a way that engineers can understand. And if they don’t appear to have understood, you cannot simply jump to saying “why are you people so slow to understand?”…the only sensible option is to see where the miscommunication is (yes, it can be with you too), and to work to fix that.

I have provided a few suggestions already.

People do have various degrees of skepticism in the nature and dangers of anthropogenic global warming. How difficult is it to recognize that? If you instead poo-poo their thoughts whenever expressed, you will win nobody’s mind. Fine by me, but then what’s a blog for?

Advertisement

RealClimate: Butterflies, tornadoes and climate modelling

Maurizio Morabito Says:
1 May 2008 at 7:11 PM

There is a simple way to settle the falsifiability issue. Could anybody at RC please post a blog clearly stating what would falsify the climate models? Say (just as a way of example) “if temperatures will be cooler than today’s in 2020″ or “if there is a sustained negative trend over the course of 25 years”. Those statements are simplistic: I am sure you can come up with something more sophisticated.

Alternatively, if such a clear-cut answer has already been the topic of one of your blogs, could you please provide the link. thanks in advance.

=======

7 May 2008 at 7:03 PM

Re #107

I am preparing a relatively long commentary on what I am learning from this blog and its comments. For now let me clarify that I do not think that current climate models are based on incorrect physics.

The black-body radiation equivalence still holds though, as what looked like a relatively minor nuisance (“noise”?) to your average XIX century physicist, was the basis for a whole new understanding of the whole science of physics.

Think of genetics: yesterday’s “junk DNA” is (in part) today’s “gene switches”. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.

As for the comments policy, in the past I have seen some thoughts of mine not published, for whatever reason. I am pleasantly surprised that nothing of the sort is happening this time around, and hopefully the situation won’t change.