[Pedant Mode On]

Charles - statements like

in the past two years the extent of the polar icecap has reached its lowest points in history by a very large margin

ought to be avoided. For one thing, this statement is incorrect - the current ice sheets covering both the north and south polar regions are relatively recent phenomena that have not always been present in the past, and have varied widely in size. The northern ice sheet only seems to be about 5 million years old, and plant fossils have been found in both Greenland and Antarctica demonstrating their past, more temperate climate. In more recent times, the northern ice sheet has changed dramatically in size, as little as 15,000 years ago covering most of North America and Europe. [Hyper-Pedant Mode On] Technically, there were several northern ice sheets separated by various features [Hyper Pedant Mode Off] but it’s more convenient and not horribly wrong to consider them as a single planetary “ice cap.”

For another, it’s precisely this sort of absolutist statement that winds up causing all sorts of problems, a point which seems to be lost on Ludwig. It gives opposition a handy hook on which to hang objections when even the slightest discrepancy is noted. Saying “The climate models are totally right!” opens the door to those raising objections to point out statements by scientists saying “The new data suggests that heating is happening differently than models predict” as proof of inaccuracy or outright lying on the scientist’s part. And there’s some validity to this: climate models are, at best, capable only of statistical predictions, and are based on both incomplete data and on mathematical models of processes that are not completely understood. Making an absolute declaration that the models or anything else in science is certain beyond doubt is foolish and fundamentally unscientific. A quick look at similar absolutist statements from “consensus” scientists that emanated when Wegener introduced his theory of continental drift would be worthwhile; I’ll see if I can locate some.

In the meantime, though, please be careful. You’ve already seen how a couple of demonstrably wrong statements - in the Limbaugh case - can wind up tainting everything else. The same is true here: accuracy is important, including accuracy over all timescales and about the limitations of climate modeling.

[Pedant Mode Off]