And certainly any scientist worth his salt knows that attributing any particular weather event to
climate is dicey at best.
Not exact matches
We
are not talking about fine - tuning the
climate system, but of altering the weather and that
is a
dicey proposition at best.
Paleo -
climate data
are dicey.
Historical data
are not questioned when it comes to «anecdotal (or reported) evidence» of battles of WWII, for example, and it
is inconceivable to me that
climate scientists give higher weighting to
dicey paleo -
climate studies than to historical documentation.
To paraphrase you: Methinks Fred's calculation just shows how
dicey the whole concept of a 2xCO2 «
climate sensitivity»
is in the first place.
The point of the exercise
was to illustrate, as Max Manacker picked up, «how
dicey the whole concept of a 2xCO2 «
climate sensitivity»
is in the first place.»
On paleo data, I think the real problem
is two-fold: first of all, there
is the flimsy and
dicey nature of the proxy data
being used and the tiny GH effect that
's being read in, which you mention, but then there
is the more basic problem that these studies have almost exclusively
been «searches for proof» (that «CO2
is the
climate control knob», as Richard Alley puts it), rather than objective «searches for the truth».