'"a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions regarding many of the key processes involved in climate change." ...
"Fundamental open questions include not only the size but the direction of feedback effects that are responsible for the bulk of the temperature increase predicted to result from atmospheric greenhouse gas increases: while climate models all presume that such feedback effects are on balance strongly positive, more and more peer-edited scientific papers seem to suggest that feedback effects may be small or even negative.
climate science has glossed over and minimized such fundamental questions and uncertainties in climate science, it has created widespread misimpressions that have serious consequences for optimal policy design'
Gee, who would have thought that the 'climate establishment' would have been engaged in a systematic misrepresentation of their research, results, need for change and virtually everything else that they write and speak. Hide the uncertainty, hide the debate, stifle dissent, claim consensus when there is no consensus; it seems there is nothing unethical that the cabal will not stoop to.
Thanks to the HockeySchtick for the tip, and for the University of Virginia for the analysis.
The full paper, worth reading, from the University of Virginia Law School is located:
Precis is found at: