More on Watt’s Game-Changer

Via Peter Sinclair and ABC Australia:

MARK COLVIN: They’re saying that it is the first indication that the IPCC recognises something called solar forcing.

STEVE SHERWOOD: It’s not the first time it recognises it. What it shows is that we looked at this. We look at everything. The IPCC has a very comprehensive process where we try to look at all the influences on climate and so we looked at this one.

And there have been a couple of papers suggesting that solar forcing affects climate through cosmic ray/cloud interactions, but most of the literature on this shows that that doesn’t actually work.

MARK COLVIN: So you’re saying that you’ve managed to basically eliminate this idea that sunspots or whatever are more responsible for global warming than human activity.

STEVE SHERWOOD: Based on the peer-reviewed literature that’s available now, that looks extremely unlikely.

MARK COLVIN: So what have these people done? Is this just a case of cherry-picking a sentence?

STEVE SHERWOOD: Yeah, it’s a pretty severe case of that, because even the sentence doesn’t say what they say and certainly if you look at the context, we’re really saying the opposite.

One Response to More on Watt’s Game-Changer

  • Comment policy:
    Constructive comments that move the discussion on are always welcome, no matter what line of argumentation they take. Comments that add nothing interesting or which try to derail the ongoing discussion are ruthlessly purged. In doing this, we are not worrying about fairness, balance, etc. All we care about is constructive engagement. Comments from nonmembers must be explicitly approved, while comments from members may on occasion be demoted. Comments which are rejected or demoted, or where part of the article is edited, will be visible in full here
  • Registered users can login to bypass comment moderation

Leave a Reply