NAS on National Climate Assessment: ‘If the draft cannot get these facts right and if it glosses over model capabilities and limitations, then one must be skeptical of its outcomes’

So skepticism is okay after all.

“That is, floods are both a natural phenomenon and a human phenomenon (land use, water management etc.) Although the draft has lots of
waffling words (‘suggests,’ ‘possible’ ‘contributed’ etc.) the fact is that the public will ignore these nuanced phrases and come away with the impression that floods will increase.”

18322Read the NRC review of the NCA.

3 thoughts on “NAS on National Climate Assessment: ‘If the draft cannot get these facts right and if it glosses over model capabilities and limitations, then one must be skeptical of its outcomes’”

  1. ‘suggests,’ ‘possible’ ‘contributed’ etc. are *not* “nuanced phrases”. You will find junk science press releases loaded with those words. They’re used for weaseling and scaring.

  2. So here “one must be skeptical”, but elsewhere in the report one must deprive skeptics of ammunition. Got it. Please report the authors to Beau Biden as unfit to have firearms in Delaware.

  3. the fact is that the public will ignore these nuanced phrases and come away with the impression that floods will increase.”

    That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

Comments are closed.