Not really, because it becomes increasingly more obvious that you've misinterpreted what the terms actually mean. Either that, or you are deliberately misstating the warnings of the report by cherry-picking of what you think supports your claims. But for now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume the first.
Bart,
Of course I was cherry picking from that rather long report. I was demonstrating to Jeff Schewe and others that the latest IPCC report really did express a low confidence in an increase in the frequency and severity of certain extreme weather events.
Do you think I have the time to discuss every point and detail that's in the report. It would be a long book.
I should also add that 'cherry picking' is what the AGW alarmist do when they make a case about the bad effects of global warming, mentioning only the negative aspects in order to create the maximum alarm. Whereas I provided a link to the whole report from which I selected the specific points I was addressing. A slight difference wouldn't you say.
Low confidence may mean that the amount of data was limited or prediction models were inaccurate.
Of course it does. That's my interpretation of low confidence. What other interpretation could there be? Low confidence does not mean low risk. It means an unknown or uncertain risk. If one was certain a risk was low, one would claim a
high confidence that the risk was low.
One of the major problems with climatology is the unavailability of accurate records from the past with which to compare the more accurate measurements of the present.
The problem I see with the believers in CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is that they don't seem to even know the difference between skepticism and denialism.
Skepticism is a fundamental requirement for all scientific enquiry. If a theory doesn't lend itself to the rigorous processes of the scientific methodology, such as allowing a process of falsification or the achievement of consistent results with repeated experiments under controlled conditions, then a degree of skepticism must follow, unless you are wearing the religious hat.
The long time spans involved in climate trends, the inaccuracy or lack of past measurements, the tremendous complexity of interacting factors which can influence climate, with positive and negative feedbacks, all have the effect of reducing certainty.
