Are the models capable of giving us a correct answer in a probabilistic
sense about the attribution of 20th century climate change, or sensitivity to CO2 doubling?
Not exact matches
Such tenuous claims of
attribution have
about as much scientific standing as Pat Robertson saying that Hurricane Katrina was the result of the vengeful wrath of God... Like Pat Roberson's
attribution of Katrina to the wrath of God in punishment for our sins, Krugman's
attribution of unrest in the Middle East to the wrath of Climate in punishment for our sins is in one
sense just emotive commentary from an uninformed pundit.
The latter would fit the accompanying example but, like the example itself, would say nothing at all
about human
attribution; and while you can torture some
sense into the former — «explicitly state that humans have had little impact on global warming» or perhaps «explicitly pooh - pooh the claimed scale of human inputs to global warming» — you'd leave the example out in the cold.