Omnologos – Comments
Opinions & Opinioni
Recent posts – Messaggi piu’ recenti- Climalteranti: Le variazioni climatiche durante l’ultimo milione di anni: mandanti, killer e alibi (seconda parte)
- BBC: Coughing up to curb climate change
- A Quantum Diaries Survivor: Latorre, please resign!
- Real Climate: Simple Question, Simple Answer… Not
- Accuweather Global Warming: 1997-2006 was Warmest in last 1,300 years in the Northern Hemisphere
- IHT: The Two Weeks You Missed
- My Tube: Tutti schiavi del navigatore
- Polar Defense Project: End in Sight
- Daily Mail: The heartbreaking picture of the polar bears…
- ASPO Italia: “L’arte della retorica nel dibattito sul riscaldamento globale: il “punto caldo” della troposfera”
Omnologos - Comments 
Posted by: Maurizio Morabito | April 25, 2008 at 11:05 PM
It would be interesting if “Scientist” would come up with ways to falsify the climate models, since as we know the people at RealClimate won’t. The “weather vs. climate” picture confirms my point: as long as there is _any amount_ of “warming”, the climate models will be considered _right_ (in the sense of “not false”).
One can imagine a period of 20 years of cooling dismissed out of hand as “aerosols” or “soot” or whatever else: with the climate models still “right”, no matter what.
On the other hand when, say, James Hansen talks about “tipping points” he is not referring to changes that will be visible only after 10 or more years of statistics: rather, to spectacular modifications of the world as we experience it. Am I mistaken on this point?
So please, if you can, try to be explicit about what observations would make you change your mind.
As I mention in my Moon Hoax blog, the difference between a dogmatic and a honest debater is that the former invariably never ever reveals what evidence would convince them to change their mind.
http://omnologos.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/phil-plaits-moon-hoax-london-speech-report/