Dārgumu medības raidījumā Nosoli un iznīcini

Shollenberger via Tom (probably Fuller):Michael Tobis is wrong. In fact, he is obviously wrong. Judith Curry was not esnxersipg degrees of certainty or belief with her Italian flag analysis (IFA). She was discussing the levels of evidence. Her personal belief is 30% of warming trend is anthropogenic, 30% is natural, she doesnt’ know about the other 40%. It’s really quite simple.Very well, IFA. I like that. Let us recall another piece of IFA, and apply Shollenberger's interpretation.From the first ref above: Will the climate of the 21st century will be dominated by anthropogenic warming (green) or natural variability (solar, volcanoes, natural internal oscillations)?which is the question with the greatest policy relevance, IMO. My scores on this one are * green 25% * white 50%, * red 25%.On Shollenberger's interpretation, this means 25% of next century's warming will be natural, 25% will be anthropogenic, and 50% will happen but Curry doesn't know why.This interpretation is, um, hard to interpret. Why will there be natural warming next century? And why will there be additional warming which she is currently unable to attribute?I do not think she is making these peculiar claims. Which is the point. It is not that one or another interpretation of IFA fails on any single assertion. It is that across the writings we have seen so far it is incoherent.I picked the example here specifically because two interpretations were presented in the same example. The fact that Shellenberger can understand one of them and ignore the other does not help us make coherent sense of Curry's IFA analyses.Now more than likely Shellenberger is a sock puppet for the think tanks that find Curry convenient, which is why he is indulging in this bit of misdirection.As for Tom, well, I don't know why he thinks he does what he does. He seems convinced that I am a bad guy because I am convinced that Curry is not making sense and found the courage to stand up and say so loudly enough that the more intelligent folks on the other side would have to take notice.I may be an idiot (anyone looking at my paycheck would agree) but I am not being a bad guy. I'm taking a hit for science, and against politics disguised as science.Which is sort of ironic, I guess. But that's a longer story than I have room for in this margin.