Sunday, August 06, 2006

"This alarmist article involved no interview, and it contains many statements that I do not support."

Well, the Amazon thing that I mentioned a few days ago took a funny turn. No sooner had I briefly ridiculed the Indy article that talked of "incalculable consequences, spinning out of control, a process that might end in the world becoming uninhabitable" than Gavin wrote an article on RC describing that piece as "good" coverage of the story. In his reply to my comment, he explains that he only really meant not quite as bad as the other article he also mentioned :-) TBH, they both seem pretty much the same to me, and although I accept that a bit of carrot is sometimes better than a lot of stick, IMO he's trying rather too hard to find something to praise here.

Anyway, one of the lead authors eventually weighed in, and his comment (from which this post's title is taken) is posted on RC site and also here. But of course the original nonsense has gone round the world several times before the truth has got its boots on.

Incidentally, I find via Stoat that some of the usual suspects from the sceptic side have cited our GRL climate sensitivity paper in some silly document. I'm not going to wade through the whole 25 pages of turgid tripe but it does appear at a glance that they have quoted us fairly and accurately (and indeed since publication, even more evidence in favour of a ~3Cish value has been presented and if anything my own views have strengthened somewhat). It's a strange state of affairs when such a paper can be considered attractive to that sort of crowd though. I suppose it is progress of a sort, since at least their seal of approval presumably implies that they accept that sensitivity is very likely greater than 1.7C (or whatever it is that we ended up with as a lower limit).

No comments: