If you would allow me, I would like to address three points here:
Lewis L

You are being deliberately obtuse.

With respect to the MWP, these are observed events from parts of the world that have little or nothing to do with each other and are not close to each other; the events dictate that it was either warmer in these places then than now or very close to being as warm as now; the period lasted hundreds of years before reversing itself. The MWP was admitted by the IPCC as it had been the unanimously accepted climate history since it occurred. Skeptics — they were not called “deniers” yet- pointed this out and noted that (a) it poured cold water on the “runaway warming via feedback loops” theory and that (b) the present warming was in no way unprecedented. Michael Mann then set out to produce a “hockey stick” that was simply bogus — the present charts make various attempts to smooth it out but it is there, which is something of an admission. The various dismissals of the MWP have been contradictory, false or otherwise useless. They include: it did not happen (not true). It was local (local to Greenland, what is now Arizona, what is now Peru, and what is now Kenya, just using the examples I’ve cited?). That it was warmer in a few places does not mean it was a truly global event (which if applied to today’s situation in which the warming is and has not been uniform would mean that today’s warming is also not a truly global event). It happened. Scientists think they have some possible answers. But the IPCC went to great lengths to try to bury it. They could have argued that since the MWP was natural and the recent warming has not been, the potential combination of a natural reoccurrence of the MWP WITH today’s warming could be harmful. But they did not argue that. They chose to try to rewrite history. That’s what they did — own it. That destroys their credibility.

Regarding predictions now with respect to weather — what you say now sounds somewhat reasonable — our best guess is X but there’s a lot of variation and we can’t make specific predictions. But the IPCC and others have been making specific predictions for decades and they have a nasty habit of not coming to fruition. And then the predictions change. We’ve now heard it all with respect to snow, tornadoes, hurricanes. They’ve got a 50/50 shot on many of them and they’re uncannily still wrong. After New Orleans in 2005 we were told to expect more of that — and then the hurricanes simply went away. Now there will be fewer due to wind shear but they will be worse. But when that does not happen there will be another prediction to match whatever happens at the time. Same thing with snow. We really were told to kiss it goodbye. Now we are told that global warming could produce more snow via more evaporation — except that this might explain MORE snow in places where it typically snows, like Worcester, but does not explain having snow in places where it typically does not, like Washington, DC (lived there, they’re not used to more than a dusting). Contradictions doom credibility. They’re there — and they’re legion. Own them. Trying to sweep them together into one admission that but-for the warming we’ve seen, the rest really isn’t a certainty as to specific effects — which is more of an admission than anything else — is nice but it ignores what has already been predicted, which is not water under the bridge. Once one side (and it is a side — the uniformity and central direction from the IPCC are frankly frightening) has committed multiple contradictions and has produced multiple failed predictions, it has zero credibility. This is even before getting into the hiatus which happened because of X, or happened because of Y, or happened because of Z, or didn’t happen, all according to peer reviewed papers. You can’t sweep these myriad contradictions together and then under the rug. We were told to kiss snow goodbye-not “best guess — sorry, estimate — is less snow but heavier snow when it snows.” We were told to get used to more hurricanes and tornadoes. We were told to get used to warmer winters that were a human health danger because the rats, mosquitoes etc… would not die off. So much for that — I grew up in Boston and the coldest winter I have ever experienced was 2014–2015 in NYC.

As for your bet, you understate the impact of your overreach. If you’re wrong, you will have dictated to people how they can eat, drive, power their homes, etc… You’ve really disrupted their lives. On abortion you’re pro-choice I’m guessing. On gay marriage? Me too. But you can’t be pro-choice for only some of the choices. Then you’re pro whatever choice it is. Any monarch or dictator could characterize himself the same way. And if you are wrong about CO2 then it won’t have been “to make the Earth cleaner.” Also, the same activists have been wrong before. I’m sure you can Google all the failed Earth Day predictions. That was a generation ago but it was the same groups… Union of Concerned Scientists. Some of these groups marched against Reagan’s nuclear buildup, arguing that it would not be successful in defeating the USSR but would only make the world more dangerous. I’ve never read or heard any admission there….

If you’re wrong you will have cost a lot of people dearly. And it won’t be the first time.

The same bet, put your way, could be said of the guy who wanders 6th Ave from Bryant Park to 47th with a bible in his hand, warning of the coming apocalypse. If he’s right, we’d better all repent.

So far he has contradicted himself far less than the “consensus.”

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.