The explorations by Keith Kloor and Andrew Freedman of the implicit, persistent complexity and uncertainty in climate attribution studies — and the traps this creates for media and activists — remind me of my answer to one of the more outrageous comments on Dot Earth by a climate hawk on steroids:
“Why is it that there always seems to be an inverse relationship between the definitiveness of an assertion and its credibility?”
(Which, of course, Joe Romm swooped in on, more like a vulture than a hawk…)
More from Dot Earth:
The tension between the need for accuracy and attention is revealed in a paper on heavy rain and warming.
Views on how the fight over climate certainty has distracted from the reality of a building risk.
The number of deaths from climate change is disputed, but vulnerability of poor places to climate hazards is not.