January 03, 2007
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Climate Change
RealClimate has not always decided to post my comments. So here is what I just submitted on their thread reacting to Andy Revkin's piece this week:
When I first presented the idea of a third "tribe" in the climate debate, partly tongue-in-cheek, I did so to recognize a another political position on climate change. Not science. That political position is characterized by people who accept the IPCC (hence, non-skeptic, i.e., "skeptic" as a noun, as often used in derogatory fashion on this site) but reject the targets and timetables approach that is codified in the Framework Convention. This includes a variety of different, even mutually inconsistent approaches proposed by people as diverse as Steve Rayner, Bjorn Lomborg, Dan Sarewitz, and Gregg Easterbrook. (And in some quarters -- maybe here -- simply mentioning the name Lomborg is enough to be labeled a heretic, ;-) )
Now, as far as I know you guys have no views on the Framework Convention one way or the other, or at least that is what you say. So this political debate has nothing to do with what you present here, and this third way should not be relevant, right? The reality is that if climate policy is going to move forward, it has to break out of (a) positioning everything in terms of science, and (b) framing everything in terms of alarmists and skeptics/contrarians. And like it or not, RealClimate is a big player in keeping this Manichean view alive, such as with your recent "year in review" and incessant skeptic obsession.
I don't care if this third way on climate policy is called the middle, top, bottom, left, or right. And I have no affinity for the NSH tag. What I do care about is that people engage in serious discussions of actual policy options in manner that is far more diverse that has existed to date. If that is something that RC wants to venture into, we'd all benefit.
Happy 2007!Posted on January 3, 2007 07:14 PM
At GristMill Andrew Dessler has a thoughtful response to the Revkin article, which helps one to understand the RealClimate reaction:
"In policy debates, it is the most extreme positions that get the most traction. These positions are usually the simplest to articulate and philosophically the easiest to defend. In the Iraq debate, for example, the initial positions were to stay the course or withdraw immediately.
The extreme positions tend to be unworkable, and more moderate but harder to defend positions are generally adopted in the end. That's what we're seeing in the Iraq debate.
I think that's what's also happening the climate debate. Policies of "stay the course" (do nothing about emissions) and "maximal response" (cut emissions deeply, immediately) are both untenable. In response, the debate has begun to focus on reasonable short-term actions. I'm glad to see this, because this is where progress will be made.
The Revkin article would have been a great contribution had it better separated the science from policy debates. There has not been any real debate over the science in several years, perhaps even the last decade. There has been and continues to be broad agreement among scientists about what we know and what we don't know. The recent evolution is in the political debate. Unfortunately, by combining these questions, the Revkin article does little to clarify the nuances of the debate for the non-expert."
Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr. at January 3, 2007 10:27 PM
Over at RealClimate Andy Revkin has this response:
". . . The orthodoxy described on TV, in movie theaters, enviro campaigns etc is that AGW is a realtime crisis that is momentous and huge and terrifying, but can be solved with existing technologies. Anyone disagree with that being the general public image of the climate 'problem' right now?
That is not the orthodoxy Gavin et al described above. They're talking about IPCC, which is barely mentioned these days (altho that'll change in 3 weeks of course) in favor of Stern Report, UK report on avoiding dangerous climate change, and the like, and some speculations about thermohaline and Greenland instabilities that many (dare I say most) people actually studying those phenomena up close don't see as very plausible.
AGW is still mainly portrayed (outside of your rarefied circles) as a problem to be fixed (a raging fire to put out), not a risk to be cut. That is your quiet, almost-private orthodoxy, perhaps, but not the one being sold to the public.
That's why I had to write about this new middle -- Hulme on BBC, the pushback from hurricane experts on 'hotter' interpretations of the state of that science, and the like. I didn't invent the cutesy "heretic" line, but it does help insure that no one can interpret this new middle as having anything to do with the old contrarians.
And, sure, we journalists always have to frame our stories in a form our editors can identify as "news." Believe me, that's hard enough with ANY climate story (AGW still is the antithesis of news as we know it), but was even harder with this one."
Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr. at January 3, 2007 10:39 PM
I think it is a valiant effort you are making (and Andy Revkin as well), but I believe it is doomed to failure. You are explicitly making this about the politics of climate change. That in and of itself makes you a heretic, and probably not the tongue-in-cheek kind for many folks. :-)
There are many who will view your proposals as an attempt to defile the pure virgin, science, with your fast talking, big city politics. (hey, this analogy's going places!) They just won't want to hear it.
As for the journalistic side, I don't see them getting off of the "it bleeds, it leads" mentality. Which means every anomolous weather event is gonna be blamed on climate change, every dire prediciton will be trumpeted, and the general public will be lucky if they have an even vague sense of what the hell is going on. So you certainly won't have public opinion defining a middle ground.
Cold economic realities might...but hey, economics.... isn't that just politics, smooth talking, well dressed friend who wants science to come over and look at his etchings?
Posted by: Rich Horton at January 3, 2007 11:07 PM
Your comment is up on RC
Posted by: William Connolley at January 4, 2007 04:36 AM
Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr. at January 4, 2007 07:01 AM
Gavin's thoughtful response over at RC, and below that my rejoinder:
Response: Roger, Thanks for your comment. I think however that Andy's text belies your words. The article barely mentioned policy options and the Framework Convention not at all and since we don't discuss policy much here, the issue we were addressing was the the middle ground on science issues. You have frequently railed against the misrepresentation of science in political debates and have stated that it is clearly incumbent on scientists to call out those who misrepresent their work - you have done it yourself on the hurricane damage issue multiple times. When asked why you don't correct the mis-representations of the contrarians, you stated that you didn't have the necessary expertise - well we do, and in line with your own actions on the damages issue, we try and point out when our science is misused - by all parties, regardless of any policy being advocated. Bad arguments are bad arguments whatever they are used for.
I'm not sure why you charaterise RC as perpetuating the alarmist/skeptic dichotomy when we go out of our way to provide nuance and context when relevant science issues come up (see previous discussions on climate sensitivty, ocean circulation, aerosols or mid-latitude storms etc.). But we are not shy in calling out rubbish when it comes along - and I can assure you that is not evenly balanced on 'both sides'.
You ask that RC becomes part of the climate policy discussion. We have said many many times that our expertise is on science, not policy - we are not qualified to assess the economic effectiveness of cap and trade versus carbon taxes versus subsidies or the Clean Development mechanism. All we can do is tell you what the climate consquences might be given changes in emssions. Expecting anything else is foolish.
Finally, I would point out that the 'year in review' was supposed to be lighthearted, and frankly, the sceptics provide more fodder for amusement than discussions about policy. I make no apology for that, but I'm slightly concerned for your sense of humour. Furthermore, expecting a comment put in at 10:30pm EST to a moderated forum to immediately appear is probably a little hopeful - we have lives outside the blog too you know. Thanks! - gavin
Thanks. A few short replies.
1. You write "I think however that Andy's text belies your words." It was Andy's story and I was quoted in it. Andy shared his views on the story and I shared mine on what was behind my thinking in the phrase he chose to quote, which happens to be the focus of your post. I do not see "consensus as the new heresy" as you suggest here. Suggesting that the FCCC is deeply flawed and unworkable is in many circles heretical (just ask SR;-).
2. You write, "You have frequently railed against the misrepresentation of science in political debates . . ." No. I have railed against bad policy arguments in political debates. As we have discussed before I do not believe that it is possible to cleave off the science from political debates and focus only on science in ignorance of the political context. Once you enter a political debate, if only to correct "misrepresentations," you are making arguments about policy, whether you admit to or not. My focus on hurricane policy is exactly along these lines.
3. You write, "But we are not shy in calling out rubbish when it comes along - and I can assure you that is not evenly balanced on 'both sides'." Your invocation here of "both sides" makes my point, and indeed that in Revkin's article.
4. You write, "We have said many many times that our expertise is on science, not policy - we are not qualified to assess the economic effectiveness of cap and trade versus carbon taxes versus subsidies or the Clean Development mechanism." Well that is your choice isn't it? There are no shortage of relevant experts who you might invite to share thoughts on these perspectives. In any case, you guys are always talking about policy anyway, and not just in stealth fashion -- Stefan has a long response to Revkin on policy on this thread stating, "Yet, I am convinced (by what energy engineers etc. tell me) that major emission reductions over the next couple of decades are possible by widespread application of existing technology." Is this assertion true? Maybe you could host Marty Hoffert (and a counter voice) for his views on this subject, rather than opining in the comments on subjects for which you are admittedly inexpert. You guys are are trying to have things both ways.
5. You write, "Furthermore, expecting a comment put in at 10:30pm EST to a moderated forum to immediately appear is probably a little hopeful." Who said anything about immediately? You guys lost my trust at some point in the past when deciding not to post some of my comments made here. I am more concerned about "at all" than "immediately." ;-)
Thanks for the exchange!
Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr. at January 4, 2007 09:40 AM
You write, "In any case, you guys are always talking about policy anyway, and not just in stealth fashion -- Stefan has a long response to Revkin on policy on this thread stating, 'Yet, I am convinced (by what energy engineers etc. tell me) that major emission reductions over the next couple of decades are possible by widespread application of existing technology.' Is this assertion true?"
That doesn't even begin to cover the thin ice of policy opinions on which Stefan Rahmsdorf ventured in his reply to Andrew Revkin! You neglected to include the jaw-dropping continuation of that sentence:
"E.g., studies show that Europe could be supplied to 100% with electricity from renewable sources using existing technology (mainly wind power) and at current electricity prices."
If "mainly" can be translated as "greater than 50%" (as most people would translate that word), Rahmsdorf is saying that "greater than 50% of the electricity in Europe could be supplied by wind power at current electricity prices."
For every "expert" Rahmsdorf cares to supply to back that claim, I can pretty much guarantee I can find 2 or more people with equal or greater creditials who would say that is complete rubbish. (To use Gavin Schmidt's word.)
Electrical grids simply can't be run with >50 percent wind power at present, because there is presently no cost-effective electrical energy storage for the massive difference between electrical demand (which varies considerably over time of day, and with much greater demand when air conditioning is required on hot days) and supply from wind power (which varies tremendously and unpredictably).
Gavin Schmidt claims the folks Real Climate "...are not shy in calling out rubbish when it comes along..."
I say Stefan Rahmsdorf's claim is rubbish. But I won't hold my breath for Gavin or anyone else at Real Climate to admit that. (Or even debate it...because they know they'd lose.)
Posted by: Mark Bahner at January 4, 2007 10:35 AM
As an alternative to the cumbersome NSH label, don't you think kyoto sceptic is more appropriate? After all if what you are questioning is the effectiveness of the policy response (Kyoto) and not the science (IPCC) then why confuse things by using the vague term "climate"?
Slightly off topic but at some point, I'm hoping to post a more lengthly response to your "misdefining climate change" paper, but for now let me just point out a few problems I have with it.
"as a first step it is necessary to consider climate policy as distinct from energy policy and to take those steps already recognized as serving common interests, commonly called ‘‘no regrets.’’ The underlying hypothesis is that these common interest actions will be more effective in addressing issues of climate change than would be continuation of the present approach."
Roger, do you seriously believe that anyone is against "no-regrets" policy options? In my policy oriented world, no-regrets is synonymous with low-hanging fruit. The problem is that there isn't much of this to go around. Or do think that we can achieve stabilization with "no-regrets" alone? Orienting your climate policy position around "no-regrets" is tantamount to do-nothing IMO, at least on the mitigation front.
A second problem I have is with your criticism that the focus on mitigation (i.e. Kyoto) draws attention away from adaptation efforts.
Firstly, adaptation does not, in general, require a coordinated international response to be effective. Individual countries can raise dikes, improve foold self sufficiency, irrigation systems, adjust coastal development policies, etc. and all of these actions will be effective regardless of whether or not other countries take the same measures.
Mitigation, on the other hand, very much requires a coordinated international response to be effective. If it is not coordinated, then free riders are likely to create a serious disincentive for individual countries to reduce emissions. Sorry if I'm belaboring the obvious, but I haven't seen anything from you that suggests a credible alternative to the process that BEGINS with Kyoto.
Which brings me to my last point. In your paper you discuss the 'dangerous interference' article in the FCCC and go on to say that Kyoto fails by that requirement. Again, this looks like a strawman to me. Is there anyone who is saying that Kyoto will prevent dangerous interference? No. Everyone recognizes that much more significant reductions are required over the long term. It's inappropriate to judge the FCCC on this basis since Kyoto is only the first step in a longer process, hence the negotiations around targets for the second committment period. Again, apologies if I'm belaboring the obvious.
Posted by: Marlowe Johnson at January 4, 2007 10:55 AM
The real problem with politics in climate science if the continuing efforts by the fossil fuel industry, led by ExxonMobil, to distort scientific facts in an effort to deceive the public about the real extent of the problem.
Renewable energy is clearly capable of meeting energy needs on a global basis; you can read my post on the issue over at realclimate under the 'heresy' article.
I'm very interested to know when you think the ongoing trend of new record temperatures will come to an end. Thanks for posting this!
Posted by: Ike Solem at January 4, 2007 11:05 AM
My previous comment got caught up in your queue as I forgot to sign in first. In it I berated you for refering to refering to "climate" NSH. I now see that you there is no "climate", just NSH, so my criticism is somewhat off-base :). But I stand by my more general point that kyoto-skeptic is a better label than NSH since it is that specific policy response that you're skeptical about...
Posted by: Marlowe Johnson at January 4, 2007 11:23 AM
A couple comments have been made above that I could not let slip by.
Andrew Dessler stated that “There has not been any real debate over the science in several years, perhaps even the last decade.”
In a way, this is true. The dominant climate change community has simply proclaimed all arguments contrary to the ‘accepted view’ null and void, thus eliminating all debate. This is not the result of a conspiracy, but of the natural ‘herd mentality’ as described by Thomas Gold in an essay found here:
Step back for a moment and ask yourself if it is at all logical that a young science, based almost entirely on the modeling of poorly understood global and extra-global processes, should be free of any significant disagreement? From a strictly scientific perspective, it is not logical, but makes perfect sense from a cultural perspective.
RealClimate is perhaps the finest example of this restrictive culture in the scientific community, which brings me to Gavin’s comment: “…we are not qualified to assess the economic effectiveness of cap and trade versus carbon taxes versus subsidies or the Clean Development mechanism.”
The attractiveness of the ‘middle way’ (or whatever you want to call it) is the multifaceted way it addresses potential climate change problems. Gavin’s comment is similar to the dominant view that the reduction of CO2 emissions is not only paramount, but perhaps the only legitimate action in the face of human impacts on global climate! The reality is that forced CO2 emission reductions are perhaps the worst way to deal with a changing climate; doing more harm than good and likely being terribly ineffective.
When I can tolerate the mischarachterizations and charachter assasinations of skeptics on the RealClimate website, I find them myopic on possible solutions to the potential problems of climate change. It is all about reducing CO2 emissions.
From my own perspective, I do not see the physical evidence that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change, but I would happily support many of the policies that might result from this ‘middle way’. Most of the ideas produce positive results whether CO2 is the primary driver of global climate change or not!
Who could argue with that?
Posted by: Jim Clarke at January 4, 2007 12:29 PM
Ike- Thanks for your comment. A few replies:
1. What evidence do you have that that the public is deceived?
2. We don't do temperature predictions here, try IPCC or British Met Office!
Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr. at January 4, 2007 12:35 PM
Since Roger does not wish to answer your question, I will give it a try:
We will likely see global cooling set in around 2015, although it will probably take another 5 to 10 years for the trend to become undeniable. This will take place regardless of what humans do about CO2 emissions.
In the meantime, average global temperatures will warm erratically and less than predicted. This will still be enough for the media to proclaim each year 'one of the warmest in history'; keep James Hansen the most quoted climate scientist and a dozen environmental groups flush with cash! It will be enough to keep Al Gore relevant, but still not electable.
When the cooling begins, it will initially be attributed in large part to 'real' air pollution from China and India, allowing the scientific community a little more time to cling to the idea that humanity (inadvertently) controls global climate. In 20 years or so, thanks to people who are currently more concerned about acne than heat waves, we will realize that humanity is still a relatively minor player in GLOBAL climate change. By then, the focus will have shifted to regional climate impacts and regional solutions; the result of both the evolution of the science and the failure of global diplomacy triggering the Great (and terrible) Eurasian Conflict centered around the year 2020.
This prediction was derived from a computer and model much more suitable for such a complex problem than the largest super-computer running the latest GCM! This computer's neural net allows it to work primarily with pattern recognition and a relatively limited linear computational ability. Still, its talent at recognizing patterns gives it a much greater ability to predict the future state of chaotic, non-linear, coupled systems like climate change than any linear based computational system to date!
In 1976, this computer correctly predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union before the end of the 20th century, but has had little luck with individual stocks or understanding women!
Posted by: Jim Clarke at January 4, 2007 01:47 PM
RE: "Great (and terrible) Eurasian Conflict centered around the year 2020."
Fascinating. My own prediction for this is somewhere between early 2009 and 2020. I won't go OT much more on this, except to give out the following hint: Google "Shanghai Cooperation Organization," "Hannah Arendt," "Trans Asian Axis," and "JR Nyquist" individually. That is the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by: Ste at January 4, 2007 03:47 PM
"The real problem with politics in climate science if the continuing efforts by the fossil fuel industry, led by ExxonMobil, to distort scientific facts in an effort to deceive the public about the real extent of the problem."
First, I have a question:
What is the reel extent of the problem?
Second, I find very interesting that many people who complain about the oil industry for the money they make (or the science they finance), also complain that the price at the pump is to high. Yet the price we pay for our energy would be alot more higher if it was only provided by clean energy. The Kyoto protocole is designed to artificially bring the price of gas higher so other energy can become competitive.
"Renewable energy is clearly capable of meeting energy needs on a global basis"
Since less than 25% (I am very optimist with that number) of the world energy is clean and renewable, what would be the miracle energy that would be able to replace the last 75% + the new demand?
Posted by: Sylvain at January 4, 2007 04:19 PM
It seems to me that Dessler confuses the issue and the debates by failing to take into account a third perspective: the debate, amoung scientists and non-scientists alike, about the appropriate norms, ethics, values, and practices of science. To frame these culture issues in terms Dessler suggests, in part what I am calling cultural issues are debates about the actions scientists should take while and when they are doing science.
Contentious issues make obvious differences in the culture of science. For example:
It seems to me that one cannot completely separate the processes of science from the scientific debate over a particular question. For surely the process and the core values held by the actors about science has a real influence over the answers arrived at through that process.
I would also note that some of these value differences strike deep personal chords in scientists. The deep sense of "such things just are not done" is rarely well or explicitly articulated but I believe this internal sense of "rightness" has an impact on the ensuing debates.
On a related topic. I believe Dessler steps over into areas that in his words are "fundamentally value-based" when he writes:
Posted by: Cortlandt at January 4, 2007 06:13 PM
Roger, while you're on the subject of the RC post, I spotted this message (#50 on their thread. Care to comment?
At the same time, he quite obviously ignores the obvious distortions of climate change denialists and other contrarians, which gains him subtle approval from Fox News and an apparent invitation to write for Cato's Regulation Magazine.
If this makes Pielke a "third way" guy, then we need to think about a fourth. There's just not much in the way of substance other than a biased attempt to define oneself as a "centrist" and continuous self-promotion to journalists who should know better.
Comment by Thom — 4 Jan 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Posted by: Judith Curry at January 4, 2007 07:28 PM
You write, "2. We don't do temperature predictions here, try IPCC or British Met Office!"
The IPCC doesn't do temperature predictions, either. At least not as of their Third Assessment Report.
It's pretty disappointing that you don't appreciate that important fact...particularly since you've even edited a book about scientific predictions.
Posted by: Mark Bahner at January 4, 2007 07:54 PM
And I thought we'd seen all the ways to sling mud and insults. This "attack via third party" is a good one! ;-)
I am pretty comfortable with my academic record and the substance that we present here on Prometheus. A good rule of thumb with blogs is that if you don't like it, don't read it!
I do note that your friend Thom forgot to mention that I once had a neighbor who kicked a dog and also, according to rumor, a distant relative who is a Republican;-)
As always we welcome your substantive comments here. The others are welcome too, but remember that they say more about you than me.
Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr. at January 4, 2007 08:35 PM
Gavin said "Bad arguments are bad arguments whatever they are used for"
So, I guess we can soon expect a discussion of the science behind MBH98?
Oh, wait... Demanding an accounting would, by definition over there, make me a contrarian. I guess those are the extremes - the contrarians and the gullibles.
Posted by: Tim Clear at January 4, 2007 09:45 PM
Actually, the real problem with politics in climate science is the continuing efforts by the carbon trader wannabes, distorting scientific facts in an effort to deceive the public about the real knowledge of the problem as to make a lot of money off the fear they generate, by e.g. making Chicken Little movies or sponsoring blogs claiming to clear the air but actually just deriding those not on the climate fear bandwagon.
Carbon Traders. They're the new Exxon. The first was Enron, which lobbied very, very hard for Kyoto.
desmogblog > NETeller: Carbon Traders. And their dupes.
Posted by: Tim Clear at January 4, 2007 10:59 PM
Now, I don't understand how anyone can write about climate science and climate policy without discussing temperature predictions. Further, there is no supportable evidence that 'global cooling will set in around 2015' - based on future emissions of aerosols from China? I thought I had heard it all, but that's a new one.
In any case, the hottest years on record since 1860 (when accurate records began) are all in the past decade. A number of climate scientist are predictiing that 2007 will set new records (the UK Met Office, for example).
To discuss the very basic physics involved, increased CO2 and the increased water vapor in the atmosphere absorb infrared radiation from the Earth's surface and reradiate it in all directions - thus warming the surface more and increasing average temperatures. The effect is more pronounced at night, and if you visit a dry desert region you can experience blazing hot days and freezing nights because of this phenomena - something unheard of in moist regions, where nightime temperatures are far closer to daytime temperatures.
Sincer more CO2 is being injected into the atmosphere, primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, we can expect new temperature records to be set into the foreseeable future - until we stabilize the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.
This means swithcing from a fossil-fuel based economy to a renewable energy-based economy, which will be difficult and painful but which is absolutely necessary. The fossil fuel industry is spending hundreds of millions of dollars (via insititutions like the American Petroleum Institute, which has hired Edelman PR services for 100 million dollars for this purpose) to prevent meaningful action from being taken; isn't that proof of a serious effort to decieve the public regarding the threat of global warming?
Posted by: Ike Solem at January 5, 2007 12:11 PM
Ike- Thanks. A few replies.
1. If you want to read about Prediction, including climate, see this:
2. You mention "proof of a serious effort to decieve the public" I am asking a different question: What evidence do you have that that the public is deceived?
Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr. at January 5, 2007 01:55 PM
I know I've seen this lesson applied to others before, but I still can't wait for Ike to respond to RPjr's point number 2.
Posted by: bubba at January 5, 2007 02:25 PM
You misunderstood my post. I did not predict that global cooling will set in around 2015 because of aerosols from China and India. I said that the AGW crowd will blame the cooling on this pollution, in order to maintain the assumption that humans have a bigger impact on climate change than 'natural' variability.
The real reason for the cooling, which I did not mention in my previous post, will be changes in solar activity that have a significant impact on global cloud cover. This is commonly known as the cosmic ray effect, and is part of the natural cycle of warming and cooling.
The direct warming effect of a doubling of CO2 is (much?) less than 1 degree C. Since this effect is logarithmic, more than half of the potential warming for a doubling of CO2 has already been realized. The theory of postive feedbacks quadrupling the CO2 warming effect has questionable support in the modern literature and no support in the historical evidence. In 20 years, the evidence will be overwhelming that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change.
My conclusions are based on the evidence and the science as I see it. (Note: I have absolutely no connections with 'Big Oil', so don't even go there.) Given this view of the science, artificially restricting energy use to reduce CO2 emissions is not only unneccesary, but extremely harmful!
Still, I can easily support many of the recommendations of RP, Jr and others who emphasis adaptation, and improvements in technology and infrastructures. These ideas are win-win, regardless of the impact of CO2 emissions.
These ideas are not a 'middle ground' between doing nothing and major global carbon restrictions. They are alternative solutions that produce benefits well beyond (any illusion of) climate stability. They are not compromising or centrist solutions. They are the best solutions to a myriad of problems, including climate change, offered so far.
Posted by: Jim Clarke at January 5, 2007 03:49 PM
I'll give 3:1 odds in your favor that temps will increase in 2025 versus 2005, 2:1 odds that 2025 will be warmer in 2025 than 2015, and 1:1 odds that temps will increase faster over the next decade than the post-1850 average increase of .06C/decade. All those offers seem to contradict you, including your prediction of slowing warming over the next decade.
Roger - sorry for going OT. Jim started it.
Posted by: Brian S. at January 8, 2007 01:29 PM