At https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/09/24/climate-change-predictions-wh… …. reports on a piece by Nigel Hawkins in The Sunday Times concerning the Nature Geoscience article (see earlier post). This admitted the estimates of global warming used for years to torture the world's conscience and justify massive spending on non-carbon energy were, er, wrong. The admission overdue he says, something that has been obvious for years. Temperatures hardly changed between 1998 and 2013 – which is a pause, according to the IPCC. Global warming was still going on, they said – when it wasn't. The Nature Geoscience article may acknowledge the models were running hot – but the article isn't about damping down on the alarmism. Not at all. They have revised CAGW – with an increased carbon target (twice to three times what it was before). Seems like the alarmism is still thriving, hence their disappointment when the tabloids made fun of the models. The goal posts have been moved – and we now have 70 years to revise the error of our ways.
Too clever by half. As one comment says – re-calculating the numbers won't do if the underlying premise is wrong anyway.
This is reminiscent of a post at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/24/npr-most-people-cant-imagine-clim… … where NPR author and psychologist Lisa Feldman Barret thinks the reason people don't care about climate change is most people can't imagine what 120F feels like. This was something of a shooting in the foot moment according to the commenters at the bottom of the post.Many people experience high temperatures at work – and they provide plenty of examples. Obviously, your average academic doesn't – or anybody working in an office with air conditioning. Insulting people is not a way to get people to accept your argument.