Thread by @Coyoteblog

1/ I had hopes from the title that this article would actually try to define the climate "consensus." Alas, no. The problem is that there is a huge bait and switch going on with the word "consensus" in climate. Let me explain @AmandaPaulson
goo.gl/Bw4MfP

2/ Take a step back. What do skeptics (or deniers in Leftist parlance) believe? Well, that is tough because there are a lot of goofballs expressing opinions (cough Trump cough) who don't know anything. But what do science-based skeptics think? Generally 4 things:

3/ A. Yes the world has warmed
B. Yes man is likely contributing to that
C. No, future warming is not likely to be catastrophic (circa 1.5C)
D. Most pronouncements tieing weather events like hurricanes and droughts to man are cr*p, with no actual trend in the data

4/ So what does the "consensus" actually say: That the world has warmed and that man is contributing a "substantial" part of that warming. Wow, that's exactly what "deniers" say! Which leaves us the question -- does the consensus encompass the catastrophe?

5/ In other words, do most all climate scientists buy the most extreme catastrophic forecasts in the most recent climate report that made headlines, that climate change was going to destroy the GDP and economic growth in this country? I would argue that they do not

6/ The article carefully dances around this. I will teach you the trick and then go back and read the article. The trick is a bait and switch. There are three steps to this tactic

7/ First: Make unlikely forecasts of catastrophic events based on extreme-cast model runs that get headlines and drive funding.
Second: Claim consensus on much more modest propositions and scenarios that everyone can agree on

8/ And here is the key trick:
Third: Imply the consensus on the modest claims applies to the catastrophic ones.

9/ Go and read the article, and keep asking the question, "Is there consensus on these catastrophic forecasts?" You will see things like these reports are very conservative and sometimes we have dialed back findings but they are general statements not specific

10/ Specific question: "Did most of the scientists involved review these most extreme forecasts and was there a consensus that this was a reasonably likely scenario?" Crickets. Because in private many are very uncomfortable with the quality of these extreme forecasts

11/ A few other observations. First, the author wrote this in response to criticism about the process. Note how many critics she interviewed? Let me count, uh... zero. Yes, as usual, we only hear the skeptic position as it is straw man reinterpreted by those we criticize

12/ This is roughly as fair as solely interviewing Rush Limbaugh to write an article about what Hillary Clinton believes.

13/ I will also observe that by only interviewing a couple of insiders to the process, it is like interviewing a couple of Republican convention delegates about the Republican platform preparation process. I can see that article now:

14/ "The Republican platform is a consensus document that carefully includes all voices in the process." Right, I am sure that article would get written. Any such article would be quick to point out that it can't be a consensus document because the group creating it...

15/ represents only about 40% of America. The same is true of these self-selected climate groups. They represent a consensus of everyone who joined the group because they agree with the consensus. And STILL, I don't think you would get consensus for the catastrophe if you asked

16/ I know media coverage of hurricanes and fires has made people afraid. That is how the media makes money, creating fear. I have written before that for most of these bad things there is not an actual trend -- there certainly is not bad trend in the data for:

17/ Hurricane strikes, hurricane TCE, US drought, US tornadoes and any number of other bad events where the media likes to extrapolate one data point into a trend. My advice: if the media claims a trend, demand trend data or don't believe them

18/ Many climate alarmists make things worse by, for example, saying that only the end of capitalism will solve climate change. When you tell someone that they can live with climate change or become Venezuela, of COURSE they resist action.

19/ But it is possible to take out an insurance policy on climate without a whole lot of cost. I have proposed such a plan, which by the way is not only lower cost but more effective than most of the plans from the Left. See it here:
goo.gl/7nqRTt