(((JonathanWeisman)))Verified account

You mean the comparison re overconfidence in climate science and hubris of the Clinton campaign? Yeah... I read it. thx.

It was an invitation to discussion, to spark interest in climate change. I'm amazed that the response has been to refuse discussion.

It was an invitation to dismiss established science not to search for possible solutions to catastrophe-it's disingenuous to claim otherwise

It would have been more legitimate to print "I don't think we should act on climate change because I'll be dead before it hits the fan"

It would have been more legitimate to print "the fossil fuel industries provide too many jobs so we just have to trash planet"

It even would have been more legitimate to print "it's too late to do anything about climate change so let's ignore it"

None of the above is true but can be argued with unlike this wishy-washy mamby-pamby "we don't really know anything about anything" bullshit

This is straight out of the Exxon paid PR book to blur the settled science so much folks don't know up from down-it's not honest argument.

He said failure of poll models relying on stated voter intent prove problems w climate temperature models. Sorry, that's ignorant 1/2

Putting aside political and climate-change issues, promoting that kind of data illiteracy is very disappointing. 2/

There is a huge difference between modeling voter turnout that relies on what people tell you, and data about measured temperatures. 3/

If standard is 100% certainty, no one will ever be convicted of a crime, either. How about "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Ever hear of it? 4/

If there's a problem with climate models, tell us what they are. Not: Polls were wrong last year, so don't trust data analysis ever! 5/

I read the column. And now I see a whole bunch of NYT editors defending it and nobody else. It was terrible. Defend better things.

You didnt read her proposed column inviting discussion on flatness of earth