But we were told by the alarmists that Boston would have the climate of Atlanta.
So..... you predicted a change, and we had a change, but it was a markedly different change than the one what had been predicted.
I'm sure there's an explanation for GW/GCC as a source of these two rainy seasons that will sound intuitively logical.
But should we just ignore the fact that explanation is contrary to what we heard for years of mild winters and summers that included heat waves?
There was a logical reason for the mild winters and heat waves too.
Do you think more people would have bought into the AGW argument if its advocates had from the start said something like this:
"Climate science is in its early stages. We cannot accurately model the climate, and we cannot represent that it's warmer now than it has been in human history. We do know that CO2 traps heat and that the atmospheric and weather changes that could come from a rapid increase in CO2 concentration are unknown, but could be disastrous."
Would that have worked better than the "end of days" scenarios that we all heard?
Tags: