This is pretty funny:
But there's a point that is being made here, that most people don't pay attention to. It's the same point made in this classic New Yorker comic:
Do you see the bait and switch? There is solid science at the core of climate science - greenhouse theory and the physics of energy absorption and spectrum bands is sound science. You can do experiments and the theory holds up really well.
But then the uncertainties start leaking in. The predicted "hot spot" that cycles heat from the upper atmosphere to the lower (so as to warm the surface) seems not to be anywhere that anyone can find. The temperature databases have all sorts of problems, so the uncertainty grows again when you ask how Urban Heat Island and infilling/gridding change the recorded values.
But that's just the set up - Dilbert drives home the glaring fact that 98% of the CMIP5 climate models relied on by the IPCC for their AR5 report have not predicted the last 20 years of climate - the "pause" (sometimes called "hiatus" where there has been no statistically measurable temperature change.
Remember the "Stimulus" and how unemployment would drop to normal levels in 2010? The models used to justify a trillion dollar boondoggle didn't hold water. Why is CMIP5 better?
These are THE questions, but the entire debate is framed as "Don't you know that Greenhouse science is settled?" Well, yeah, but that doesn't say anything about what temperature will be in a century.
Bait and Switch - it's what's for dinner in the Climate Science Cafe.
Thanks to Rick for emailing the link to Dilbert.