from a Deutche Welle interview with Hans von Storch:
DW:In which case you’d be running the risk of loosing your credibility?
HvS: That’s exactly the point that I don’t like: that in the end we lose our credibility. For outsiders it always looks a bit like us climate scientists jump to any explanation that doesn’t go against our basic assumption – that CO2 is behind global warming. I do believe that this basic assumption is right, but it could also be that there are other factors we’ve underestimated so far.
“If this was to continue and global temperatures basically did not rise at all, we’ll have a problem.”
The problem with alarmist science is that the best case scenario is that you’re wrong. To then look at this best case scenario as having a problem is indicative of the systemic lack of impartiality that has plagued the industry since day one. Why so many in the general public are willing to believe that the almighty scientists are free from such emotional biases as pride, pretention, or fear of proffessional reprisal is beyond me.
In baseball, there’s a phrase describing a batter who’s fearful of getting hit by a pitch. He’s got his “foot in the bucket” at the plate.
The Warmist Bucket Brigade is beginning to form.