Looks like Bates is on hold for a couple posts so I can look at a discussion at the blog …and Then There's Physics. Though I'm prefacing it with an essay I wrote "Colorado Floods - statistical certainty vs geophysical realities" about the September 2013 televised release of the preliminary report on the torrential rain event that hit central Colorado a few weeks earlier. Given by the Western Water Assessment (WWA) together with Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES).
All in all it was an excellent understandable detailed report, fact after fact after fact. But when reporters asked scientists to tie those facts together, the messaging broke down into babble because the panel members were too ...?... to dare make Thee AGW connection.
I'm prefacing my repost, with the kickoff comment at ATTP. Some commenters are rather critical of what I've done, though some appreciate what I'm trying to convey and agree. My unpolished style has taken a few hits. No doubt I wish I had more time to focus on it, bet I could do much better, bit more schooling would have been lovely, alas that is not my fate, doing the best I can with what I got, I ask the reader's indulgence and focus on the issue being raised.
izen says:
@-ATTP
I agree that the rate of warming, or the distribution between land, sea and air of the energy accumulating from a rising forcing is a matter of scientific interest.
How that interest, and research is reported and framed has been shaped by seepage. The result is what can look like reasonable scientific language, but because of a carefully established misleading context that language can be parsed in general terms that confirm the misinformation.
How that interest, and research is reported and framed has been shaped by seepage. The result is what can look like reasonable scientific language, but because of a carefully established misleading context that language can be parsed in general terms that confirm the misinformation.
