More examples of climate confusion

In the last blog I mentioned several examples of the problems global warming alarmists now have to deal with. Let’s continue with more from the BBC’s interview with Phil Jones, the now-notorious director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the central Climategate figure.

He was asked a key question about the debate over climate change: “When scientists say the debate on climate change is over, what exactly do they mean--and what don't they mean?"

Here’s his reply: “It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.”

So Jones says "the vast majority of climate scientists" don't think the debate is over? But I thought the United Nations, Al Gore, the Nobel Prize committee, and all mass-media outlets have insisted the issue has been decided.

Take a look at a recent Washington Post piece, which tries to have it both ways: “With its 2007 report declaring that the 'warming of the climate system is unequivocal,' the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won a Nobel Prize--and a new degree of public trust in the controversial science of global warming. But recent revelations about flaws in that seminal report, ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing, are undermining confidence not only in the panel's work but also in projections about climate change. Scientists who have pointed out problems in the report say the panel's methods and mistakes--including admitting Saturday that it had overstated how much of the Netherlands was below sea level--give doubters an opening. It wasn't the first one. There is still a scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change. But . . .”

What’s the overall point of the article? It first says the consensus on global warming has dissipated. But look at the last full sentence—there really is global warming?? So, the newspaper says the issue is now in doubt except it’s still settled. Hmm . . .

The true believers have a hard time confronting the problems with their position. They have embraced global warming as a political and quasireligious doctrine based, they have been led to believe, on the authority of science.

But as the above examples illustrate, climate science is rife with uncertainty. Yet it’s these hard-core adherents who refuse to listen to any doubters or acknowledge that the "consensus" they have touted is a sham. Aren’t they the ones who accused the skeptics of being narrow-minded? Ironic, isn’t it?