It won't be the side that bases
its arguments on computer modelled projections and a Malthusian sense of impending doom.
Not exact matches
One can gain much more insight by pen
on paper, procrastination,
argument and watching the skies, seas and the land; than one can by diverting efforts into
models that require very expensive
computers and ending up naively obsessing about
modelling artifacts.
However K has to also recognise that another
computer model of equal veracity to all the others and based
on the same data but drastically reducing the AGW signal has serious consequences for «the science is settled»
argument and supports the «let's not be too hasty» line, if nothing else.