beragampengetahuan: Much ado about acceleration – Beragampengetahuan

When I say — “I suspect many who comment on (Hansen’s paper) have never read it,…. or understand it” I was not referring to anyone in this place specifically, but generally speaking about the many comments I have seen since the pre-print was made public in late 2022. From both climate scientists and general commentators.

Overlaying Fig 25 on top of CMIP6 graphs grossly misrepresents the contents of Hansen’s paper, and the basis for that Fig 25 graph.

“Correlation does not imply causation” refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two events or variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them. It is a logical fallacy to draw a correlation where none exists.

‘Pipeline’ is NOT an endorsement for the assumptions within nor the output of CMIP6 simulations nor projected future temperatures – far from it. Hansen et al in fact are directly challenging the efficacy and reliability of CMIP6 GCMs for multiple scientific reasons.

I recommend that people actually read the paper – all of it. Slowly and carefully.

Everything needed to have written what is produced here by Gavin and in Hausfather’s carbon brief paper now was available in 2022. But since then nothing was said on this “new narrative” of Correlation “hey look the graphs are in agreement!”

It begs the question – so why now simultaneously more than 18 months later???

This has the appearance of possibly being an opportunistic Misuse of Hansen’s Graph in Figure 25 – which was not provided nor intended as a support of CMIP6 models and projections. Read the Paper itself to see why.

What has changed today is that Zeke and Gavin both suddenly make the very same arguments and draw the same Coincidental comparisons / Correlation that in fact misrepresents what Hansen et al actually says about the CMIP6 models and the science in his Paper.

Please go read it. Read what he says in it about his prior Ice Melt paper and how that was blackballed (by a ideological cabal (?) of mainstream / reticent climate scientists), just like his Pipeline paper has been blackballed with false claims and misrepresentations repeatedly being made about what it states and shows.

What I have been seeing before and now here, including some of the responses, has many of the hallmarks of what are typically described as logical fallacies, unfounded sophistry, motivated denial, and typical cognitive dissonance at play. Of course no one (myself included) can really know another’s intentions nor what is going on in their minds to make them act the way they do, but we can see what they do and say.