I’m pinched for time, so I’ll unashamedly pinch this from Bishop Hill (who I don’t think will mind):
A devastating paper by Jane Goodwin on Iowa State university is discussed at Judy Curry’s blog. The subject is the IPCC consensus:
We shall argue that consensus among a reference group of experts thus concerned is relevant only if agreement is not sought. If a consensus arises unsought in the search for truth and the avoidance of error, such consensus provides grounds which, though they may be overridden, suffice for concluding that conformity is reasonable and dissent is not. If, however, consensus is aimed at by the members of the reference group and arrived at by intent, it becomes conspiratorial and irrelevant to our intellectual concern.
Both the paper and the blog post are must-reads.
Judith Curry has linked Jane Goodwin’s name to her webpage at Iowa State: http://goodwin.public.iastate.edu/.
Jane Goodwin is not a scientist, but a Professor of English. It looks as if she teaches top-notch courses:
Courses:
Graduate seminars
Eng 489: Undergraduate seminar/Rhetoric of reconciliation
Sp Cm 412: Rhetorical Criticism
Eng 350: Rhetoric & the History of Ideas
Sp Cm 324: Legal Communication
Hon 321: Honors seminars
Sp Cm 322: Argumentation, Critical Thinking & Debate
Sp Cm 305: Language, Thought & Action
Sp Cm 212: Fundamentals of Public Speaking
This sounds like one Prof. who realizes that critical thinking is not the same thing as critical theory, and she makes her students tackle real problems. She also has a website:
Between Scientists & Citizens:
http://scientistscitizens.wordpress.com/
She describes it as “my blog on what happens when scientists enter policy controversies” However, it is not regularly updated: her last entry relates to Steve McIntyre’s response of last year to Cuccinelli’s investigation of the University of Virginia from last year and there are no comments.
Read it at Judy Curry’s.
Brought a smile of content to my face.
Thanks, Anthony, this is a very important lesson to stress.
Consensus in science? Ask Galileo about that, the consensus of the time was that the universe revolved around the earth. If you want a more recent example, look at the “scientific consensus” we observed regarding the imminent danger of “bird flu,” H5N1, which threatened to perilously break out from Asia and sweep the globe, killing millions (of people, not birds) in its path.
Haven’t heard much about H5N1 in the news lately, have we?
If I get this right, a claim of consensus necessitates the consensus group to defend it’s knowledge base as the minority has a legitament place in the dialogue. Given that time has elapsed, and a diverse group of interested scientists, engineers, accountants, statisticians, and social thinkers have become involved, the science has demonstrated a divergence as opposed to convergence of the veracity of any projection, let alone understanding. Consensus then becomes akin To conspirator, the fewer involved, the longer the consensus view can be held. Once the dialogue becomes wide spread, inclusive of opposing views, a minority report becomes mandatory before policy recommendations are enunciated. The policy should reflect both the predominant as well as alternative viewpoints.
it does not appear that “devistating” is an appropriate title here – for several reasons.
It is worth noting that the writer talks about “scientific proof” – which shows a lack of understanding of even basic scientific principles – but in any case it does not appear that the paper here is exactly the critique claimed. From the last section “And the ultimate success of the consensus has produced no discernable policy results, since there remain plenty of ways of arguing against mitigation or adaptation, even in the face of undeniable global change”
It appears she is making a case that simply have scientific consensus is not enough to move policy action forward. There is nothing in here that invalidates the science.
Bystander, the since has been invalidated over and over again, why should someone else do it again?
I’m having trouble finding this paper “devastating.” Are we supposed to be amazed by her revelation that the IPCC manufactured consensus is worthless? My reaction is “No sh1t Sherlock!”
The devastating paper says it is by Jean Goodwin not Jane Goodwin!
Nice to see the “yoof” are getting it, too 🙂
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FAybBEuIpy44&h=XAQATy29F
I like the quote, but it is not to be found in Jane Goodwin’s paper. It is from Keith Lehrer circa 1974 and is quoted by Judith Curry in her concluding comments relating to Goodwin’s paper.
Have to agree with Chilli – no shit, Sherlock. She rightly refers to the irrelevance of a “sought” consensus. Well, she says “sought,” others before her have said “manufactured” – same difference. She’s saying nothing new.
@ Bystander (and apologies to everyone else for stating the bleeding obvious): the phrase “undeniable climate change” says nothing about the cause. Now do you get it?
Consensus = anti-science…
http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/07/midnight-train-to-middle-ages.html
And the basic laws of human stupidity – well worth a read if only for this one quote:- “…one notices among those in power an alarming proliferation of the bandits with overtones of stupidity”
http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~leeey/stupidity/basic.htm
Jean Goodwin, not Jane…
Data accepted or taken by consensus?
Deciding which scientist’s work conforms with observations of nature by consensus?
Funding science by consensus?
The review process for papers by consensus?
Deciding whose science is put into UN reports by consensus?
Having knowledge and generating creativity of new approaches by consensus?
No, no, no, no, no and no.
There, fairly straight forward and I am speaking only for myself . . . you know . . . the individual . . . the anti-consensus of the one (1). If all scientists agreed with me by happenstance . . . it would not be a consensus; it would be agreement of a temporal nature; it would be a marker in time that could be used for advancing science in a certain direction for a period of time (of unknown length).
John
There is genuine scientific consensus about undeniable climate change. The evidence does support the fact of climate change, however when scientists from many different scientific disciplines all work on the cause, rate and extent of climate change, then the only remaining consensus is contrived and backed up by nothing more than threats, intimidation, money and an insidious ‘groupthink’ of like-minded co-religionists.
The phrase, “The climate is changing” is about as controversial a statement as the claim “The air we breathe contains oxygen”. Where concensus begins to break is when we examine the primary and underlying causes, the multiple feedbacks, what sort of feedbacks they are and what rate and extent of effect they may have on climate. When you get into the actual detail, there is NO consensus whatsoever, but lots of competing theories and ideas.
From the paragraph above, I think the author is getting at an important distinction. There are times when a consensus is reached in the normal course of scientific development. (Who now disagrees with the theory of heat as molecular motion? I.e. there is a general consensus now that this idea is correct. The same goes for the heliocentric as opposed to the geocentric interpretation of planetary motion.) But when a “consensus” is the result of an apparent intent to achieve it, then (at the very least) flags should be raised.
In this context, it is worth noting that when dubious claims about the physical world are made, these are always done in a way that mimics the trappings of genuine scientific discourse. But in these efforts there is always a false note; there is always something exaggerated, a sense of unnecessary exertion, which, as I’ve said before, gives the game away.
A simple example: if 2010 really was the “hottest year on record” why should it be necessary to amass a set of record-breaking temperatures and catalogue a series of extreme events? If the temperatures were really so extreme, then by now (after 20 years of warming!) this should be a universal experience. There should be no need for all these convoluted arguments. QED.
I use the following when anyone invokes the ‘consensus’.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
The above was written by Michael Crichton, who, apart from being a renowned author was a medical doctor and a post doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute of Biological studies and also taught anthropology at Cambridge University.
Crichton was as qualified as anyone to define the work of science.
Bystander says:
July 16, 2011 at 11:41 am
“It appears she is making a case that simply have scientific consensus is not enough to move policy action forward. There is nothing in here that invalidates the science.”
Ok, i can invalidate it for you if you have a moment.
a) Climate Change predictions are based on Climate models.
b) Climate is the long term average of weather.
c) weather is chaotic.
d) it follows from b) and c) that climate is chaotic.
e) The definition of a chaotic system is that the deviation of two runs with slightly different initial conditions becomes exponentially larger over time.
f) It follows from e) that forecasting the chaotic system with a model runs into a computational complexity problem; doubling the computational effort will only buy you a linear increase of forecasting horizon for a desired precision.
g) It follows from f) that projections to the year 2100 are ridiculously unscientific. Even if you average 20 runs.
h) It follows from g) that the practitioners of said projections are knowingly deceiving the public.
I know that Steven Mosher will protest but that’s because he spent a lot of time running models and now needs to rationalize his effort. Sorry, Mosh.
I like the post by DirkH, That should be on the front page of the newspaper.
Australia is about to change its whole economic system based on thin lies. It seems that there is none in the ruling elite that can understand the consequences.
As i have seen it written before “The best weatherman can’t tell us what it will be like on Tuesday, how can they tell us what it will be like in 100 years.”
@DirkH
Yes, weather is chaotic, but I can confidently predict that the the Sahara will be warmer than England and that summer will be warmer than winter, even in 2100.
I’ll be away for three weeks, but we’ll be doomed for the entire time.
Consensus, is a requirement for admittance unto the gravy train of “other people’s money”, there is no fee, other than the loss of ones soul.
I read the paper and consider it gobbledegook: So ambiguous, fuzzy, and confusing as to be valueless.
“Noblesse Oblige says:
July 16, 2011 at 6:36 pm
I read the paper and consider it gobbledegook: So ambiguous, fuzzy, and confusing as to be valueless.”
Funny, that’s how I describe most of Michael Mann’s papers.
Consensus is NOT science!
I’m with A Lovell and his Micheal Crichton quote. That sums it up very well. I’m for show me the reproducible facts. If the IPCC teenage group think can’t produce the hard science then all their censuses aren’t worth the waste of good trees. Today, the facts against AGW are ripping the IPCC to shreds – and any scientists worth their salts want nothing to do with the IPCC. And believe me when the Republicans come to power, and they will, the left wing liberal hysteria will die its long awaited death by money strangulation. Thanks to WUWT, Steve McIntyre and others more and more facts are being made clear on a daily basis and more and more reputable scientists are coming out against AGW. Plus the sun isn’t co-operating with the warming fanatics – oh, dead, what else can go wrong for the leftists? Global cooling anyone next?
“From another perspective, however, I have been arguing that the IPCC’s rhetorical strategy was a catastrophic success. Instead of taking “denialism” as a last-ditch rhetorical tactic which
illegitimately “manufactures” doubt, I have suggested that claims to authority open an argument
space within which “denialist” objections are entirely legitimate. A defensible consensus on
climate change was at last achieved, overcoming these objections. But it took two decades to
fulfill the commitments undertaken in the initial consensus claim;”
Goodwin is a true believer. Her exposition of the manner in which the initial perception of the existence of a “consensus” view on AGW was manufactured might be considered “devastating”, but only among those of us who have always doubted that such a consensus ever existed. From her POV it only delayed the time it took for it to be legitimately recognized, as she seems to believe it now has been. She doesn’t appear to be what I would call a “deep thinker”.
This paper reflects what we already knew!
What is new is the ability to of Jean Goodall to put pen to paper and explain in a long winded but completely understandable fashion that consensus is not science and science must be irrefutable or damned close.
IPPC’s science fiction doesn’t come close or even stand the basic sink test, that’s why a few skeptics have grown to an army of enquirers, who don’t blindly except the unacceptable or an assurance the science is in and there for settled.
The science is not in or settled on climate or the solar system, there are to many variable’s to be conclusive and won’t be in 100 lifetimes. At best we understand the basics, but that is enough to know a pro from a con and a truth from a lie! The IPPC wove and designed a crock that is unraveling faster than Al Gores army of warmist can regurgitate endless gloom and doom. The evidence is in the cover-ups, the different catastrophic models and conclusion that basically only agree on three thing’s blind abidance, tax and servitude to the elitist.
Enough said!
@ DirkH – “Ok, i can invalidate it for you if you have a moment.”
That is bogus Dirk. You are making assumption that just are wrong
First, you are assuming that the models have to be 100% accurate to be useful – which is bogus. If you knew that there was a 90%+ likelihood of your kid drowning you’d put on a life vest not wait for 100% proof and risk your kid dying.
Second – you are assuming that local short term variability (weather) is identical to long term larger scale variability (climate)
Third – by your own line of reasoning we’d never be able to predict weather, and yet we do a reasonable job of that. (Last time you jumped on a flight did you check the local forecast before packing? How about before you went skiing?)
Fourth – by your line of reasoning we’d never be able to remotely predict the impact of forcers on the climate, and that has been done as far back as 1988. (Hansen et al)
“The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo provided a good laboratory for model testing (see the figure). Not only was the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5 °C accurately forecast soon after the eruption, but the radiative, water-vapor, and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were quantitatively verified.”
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_04/
“If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. ”
So building models base on gravity isn’t science – because there is consensus on gravity?
How about smoking being bad for your lungs? There is consensus on that too.
The problem with statements like this is that they are intended to apply to a given field but when addressed at science they actually have to be true broadly, and when looked at broadly they are quite obviously bogus.
Bystander (9:50 pm), Judith Curry has warned against circular reasoning.
It’s not consensus which gives your examples credence, but empirical evidence.
Let’s think of the estimation of the grade of a new mine from drill hole chemical analyses; then compare it witrh climate work.
In ore estimation, there is a best value, but it is approached as the number of drill holes and the number of assays increases.
An individual working on the project has a desire to arrive at a consensus with the others. This is mainly because distance from the group consensus is a possible indicator of individual error.
The individual distant from the consensus is most inclined to re-examine his/her work if there are serious rewards AND serious penalties if the consensus view is later shown to be wrong. (That is, after mining, there was less or more ore present than was estimated beforehand).
In climate work, there is a lack of a strong reward, but more to the point, a lack of a strong punishment if an individual is shown in hindsight to have been way off the mark. The climate worker does not get a bundle of shares if he/she held out on a minority view that was shown right with time. Nor does he/she end up on the employment tip if badly wrong.
Without strong reward/punishment, discussion of consensus becomes academic rather than practical and personal. This is serious. Those who in the past predicted an ice-free North Pole by a certain year should now be driving cabs, not political opinion.
Scientific consensus is only science when it is a consensus about the predictions of well articulated theories not contradicted by observation. Otherwise it is just the opinion of scientists.
There is no well articulated theory of the climate that produces the 2C to 4C warming claimed as the consensus.
Thus such a claim isn’t science.
Goodwin , in what seems to me a careless assessment of the post-normal science situation we’ve had visited on us by the ‘consensus’ scientists , and a shallow conclusion, says :
[ ‘From citizens, this might require a willingness to proceed even in the face of uncertainties; ‘]
This is what is being demanded of us in Australia by our present government — right now—to ‘just say yes’—-to manufactured uncertainty that threatens our ability to survive as a first world economy.
‘Willingness to proceed’ surely depends on what ‘proceeding’ encompasses.
If it were just that we were expected to make all the efforts possible to reduce our emissions —more efficient appliances and cars—better building design etc—-without harming our economy, then most Australians would be in that.
But the scheme the Australian Labor government is trying to force on us, is designed to cripple our economy, destroy our one competitive advantage and turn Australia into an economic backwater—and all for no warming reduction anywhere, as our efficient industries will close down, and the work will be done with more emissions elsewhere in the world.
What’s being forced on us here is described by its proponents in climate science in Australia, as a transformation of the economy ‘similar to that of the industrial revolution’—so it’s no small deal.
What we are being called on to give up ‘in the face of uncertainties’ is our cheap and reliable electricity from coal-fired power, to switch to wind turbines and solar PV mainly, with solar thermal, wave technology, and geothermal power down the track.
We have no nuclear power, and never will have, and only a tiny amount of hydro.
We are a carbon-powered country and are being told that will end —-with no renewable ready to take over to power industry.
Every single thing we make will be much more expensive and therefore much less competitive.–we struggle to compete with Asian manufactures as it is.
So our biggest export income earner [ cleanest coal in the world], and our manufacturing industry , and much of our agricultural export industry will be killed stone dead—- or on death row because no investors will touch them.
So when Jean Goodwin breezily talks about citizens being ‘willing to proceed in the face of uncertainties’,
she seems to be just advocating the Precautionary Principle, in which case ‘proceeding’ can be catastrophic.
There’s an even stronger point: consensus between regularly interacting individuals is less useful and reliable than one arrived at by those who have little contact (hence little opportunity to influence each other or to become concerned about garnering approval and support.)
==>
So the “manufacture” of consensus can come out of routine interpersonal interaction.
==>
Only loners produce good results and have meaningful opinions.
>:)
Sounds to me that Dr. Goodwin expects scientists to carry out independent experiments, share results, design and carry out more experiments, fine tune the theory and share again to get to the result that the data indicates.
Sound a bit radical to me.
I remember another scientific consensus concerning mountain-building and the movement of continents. This was in the 1950s, when I was an undergraduate. My professor warned us that “No academic could get tenure at a North American university if he believes that continents move.”
Of course that was not 100% true. S.J. Gould said that it was OK at Harvard to discuss continental movement provided one did it in the back stairwell. And when the big breakthrough came in the 1970’s one Canadian University and one American University was in on the scoop along with Cambridge in the UK.
But of course the geographers had been saying all along that the evidence was there for all to see that Africa and South American had once been joined. Problem was that the geophysicists could not find a mechanism to drive continental movement. But somehow they managed to explain mountain building with geosynclines and anticlines. Swallowed an elephant and choked on gnat.
Even though I was young and gullible, I just could not see how isostatic adjustment of the crust following erosion could uplift mountains like the Andes. I was using movement of plates to account for geomorphological features but I was careful to avoid suggesting that plates could move horizontally. It was not conscience that made me too cowardly to speak: I wanted to get the degree and I wanted a job and a career.
Scientific consensus – sounds more like Three Men Make a Tiger to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_men_make_a_tiger
Surely the advances in science come from those who do not accept the consensus
John B:
How does your correct prediction help in any way to calculate how much colder/warmer the winter/summer in 2100 will be? Troll.
Bystander says:
July 16, 2011 at 9:50 pm
A Bystander you are not. Green apostle maybe. Intellectual no! Strawmen and circular arguments are too easily refuted by the level of knowledge and intellect found on this site.
I suggest you go join the faithful at RC.
@ Stephen – do you “get” the irony of course of consensus not ground in facts being a bad thing but you want to kick me off here because I am challenging the consensus that you believe in?
John B says:
July 16, 2011 at 5:17 pm
“Yes, weather is chaotic, but I can confidently predict that the the Sahara will be warmer than England and that summer will be warmer than winter, even in 2100.”
Yes, John B, but what does that have to do with AGW?
At this point in the discussion, it needs to be pointed out again ( see Louis says: July 16, 2011 at 1:01 pm) that the quote Anthony provides is not from the Goodwin paper (hey, Anthony said he was busy), but rather a final note from Judith Curry’s discussion of the Goodwin paper, in which Dr. Curry quotes from a paper by Keith Lehrer presented on April 29, 1974.
The significance of the date is that the quote could not possibly be about the global warming controversy, yet it applies perfectly to IPPC and its selling of global warming.. It is worth following the whole trail on Judith Curry’s blog.
Friends:
The quality of anonymous trolls on WUWT is reducing (although their number is increasing). I cite a recent example of the standard of troll comments we now have to put up with.
Above, t July 17, 2011 at 9:24 am, stephen richards wrote to Bystander saying;
“A Bystander you are not. Green apostle maybe. Intellectual no! Strawmen and circular arguments are too easily refuted by the level of knowledge and intellect found on this site.
I suggest you go join the faithful at RC.”
At July 17, 2011 at 11:41 am Bystander replied:
“@ Stephen – do you “get” the irony of course of consensus not ground in facts being a bad thing but you want to kick me off here because I am challenging the consensus that you believe in?”
And the irony is that Bystander replied to the accusation of his use of “Strawmen” by posting a strawman: Stephen Richards did not say, suggest or imply that he wanted Bystander to be kicked off WUWT.
Richard
Hmmm. This disappeared, so I will try to post it again. Sorry if it is a duplicate.
Friends:
The quality of annymous trolls on WUWT is reducing (although their number is increasing). I cite a recent example of the standard of troll comments we now have to put up with.
At July 17, 2011 at 9:24 am stephen richards wrote to Bystander saying;
“A Bystander you are not. Green apostle maybe. Intellectual no! Strawmen and circular arguments are too easily refuted by the level of knowledge and intellect found on this site.
I suggest you go join the faithful at RC.”
At July 17, 2011 at 11:41 am Bystander replied:
“@ Stephen – do you “get” the irony of course of consensus not ground in facts being a bad thing but you want to kick me off here because I am challenging the consensus that you believe in?”
And the irony is that Bystander replied to the accusation of his use of “Strawmen” by posting a strawman: Stephen Richards did not say, suggest or imply that he wanted Bystander to be kicked off WUWT.
Richard
There was consensus amongst certain political experts within the Labour Party that the expert politician of long experience Gordon Brown would make an outstanding Prime Minister.
Those experts were wrong. Gordon Brown was the worst Prime Minister since the war.
This may be devastating to the IPCC on a scientific level, but Jean is clearly a true believer and she clearly did not intend to condemn them by this paper.
In fact, she concludes the IPCC rhetorical strategy has been a “catastrophic success” while condemning actual real science with suggesting we should have; “an increased resistance against the temptation to look for authority from science.”, all while considering the notion that deliberately manufactured consensus in lieu of actual scientific proof is in fact the best way to convert ‘scientific consensus’ into policy.
Have no doubts; she is a left wing true believer on the whole shootin’ match of AGW, and this is part of a rehab. effort, since AR4’s scientific credibility is all shot full of holes. Read her web-page. She’s not a scientist and she clearly believes in that liberal arts, there is no right or wrong, the truth is all relative kind of crap that inevitably leads to the green side.
My $0.02.
Nonsensus!
(Feel free to apply liberally!)
Global Orbit Decay (Updated Version)
By: Willie McDonald
cdnld30@gmail.com
The events below were discovered by scientific organizations such as NASA, not by me! These events were discovered in 20th century, and are occurring simultaneously, and is slowly worsening. Many of of these events have been occurring for less, than a millennium (LTM). I believe they are now beginning to affect the earth’s climate. I’m a climate change expert with 28 years of experience. Green house gases has nothing to do with global warming. Many scientists believe the sun plays a larger role in climate change, than first thought. Global warming can be reversed go to http://www.orbital-decay1.blogspot.com, but if its not reversed in time all life on this planet will perish. Below are the reasons I believe the earth’s orbit around the sun is destabilizing, and is responsible for global warming.
1. The earth is moving away from the moon.
A. http://www.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/Notes/section4/new17.html
2. The earth’s rotation is slowing down. (LTM)
A. http://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/ggfc/tides/intro.html.
3. The earth is shifting on its axis. (LTM)
A. http://divulgence.net/axis%20shift%202.html.
4. The earth is wobbling on its axis
A. http://www.world-weather.com/world-weather/our-wobbling-earth-wobbled-by-the-worlds-weather/
5. The earth is developing a breach in its magnetic field. (LTM)
A. http://www.science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/16dec_giantbreach
6. Both polar ice caps outer regions are being melted by the sun, during each ice caps summer season, and the oceans are rising. (LTM)
7. The sun is getting hotter, and brighter (LTM). It’s possible earth is moving closer to the sun.
A. http://www.rs2theory.org/node/106
B. http://telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3325679/the-truth-about-global-warming-its-the-sun-thats-to-blame.html
C. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/sun-brightness.html
D. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
8. Many scientists are how saying that the IPCC report, and the green house gas theory is false.
A. http://www.jimball.com.au/features/IPCC-False_evidence.htm
B. http://www.mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm
C. http://www.petitionproject.org
References: NASA, NOAA, USGS, The American Astronomical Society, etc.
If the links don’t open when you click on them, please enter them by hand.
People shade themselves from the sun, not from the greenhouse effect. You will never get sun burn, sun stroke, or skin cancer from the green house gas effect, beware of the sun.
paddylol says:
July 17, 2011 at 2:18 pm
John B says:
July 16, 2011 at 5:17 pm
“Yes, weather is chaotic, but I can confidently predict that the the Sahara will be warmer than England and that summer will be warmer than winter, even in 2100.”
Yes, John B, but what does that have to do with AGW?
——-
I was rebutting DirkH’s logic, which is roughly “if we can’t predict tomorrow’s weather, how can we predict the climate in x years?” The answer is that climate it governed by different rules than day to day weather, as are the seasons and regional variations, which was my point. If there is more heat entering the system than leaving it, as has been measured, it will get warmer. We can’t say with certainty exactly where or when the warming will appear, that’s the chaotic part, but appear it surely will. And over a long enough timescale, e.g. decades, the chaos gives way to the trend.