I know these are just news stories about the actual report and no one has actually seen the report yet, but does this make sense?
The IPCC said the evidence of climate change has grown thanks to more and better observations, a clearer understanding of the climate system and improved models to analyze the impact of rising temperatures.
So, after a period with no warming, the IPCC is MORE sure of human caused global warming because:
1) of more and better observations? Of what? There wouldn’t be more and better observations of the past, only of the present which means more and better observations of no global warming.
2) a clearer understanding of the climate system? A clearer understanding would bring better models that would then predict the lack of warming during this time.
3) improved models to analyze the impact of rising temperatures. So somehow by analyzing the impact of rising temperatures, you are led to more evidence of the reason for the rising temperatures. That makes no sense. The impact of my illness on my person, does not in any way lead to why I am sick.
Read this too. Regarding knowing unknowns.
Climate cannot be predicted for the same reason we have no idea what the global economy will look like 100 years hence. In both cases, the researchers simply don’t know what they don’t know — which swamps what they do know.
Scientism is afflicted with a bad case of WTSIATI: what they see is all there is. How sad!
If we could predict surprise — a contradiction in terms — then we could organize and plan for it. Nevertheless, despite the intrinsic contradiction, this is precisely what leftists presume to do, i.e., control the uncontrollable and predict the unpredictable. In short, socialism would work beautifully if only creativity didn’t exist.