Warmist Michael Brown: "there is remarkably good agreement between models of climate change and the temperature data"

Adversaries, zombies and NIPCC climate pseudoscience

Contrary to recent claims in the media, there is remarkably good agreement between models of climate change and the temperature data.
...
How does the NIPCC spread doubt, given the temperature record and consensus of professional scientists? The answer is manufactured partisanship.
...
IPCC reports openly discuss the strengths, weaknesses, criticisms and uncertainties of the science.
...
Heartland’s NIPCC partially mimics the IPCC, but with key differences. It is written and reviewed by dozens of people, almost exclusively drawn from the “sceptic” community, and is consequently highly partisan.

Indeed, the NIPCC advocates an adversarial approach to assessing climate science, with partisan “teams” arguing for different positions.
This call for an adversarial debate has also been repeated in recent op-eds by Bob Carter, Judith Curry and Gary Johns.
The call for adversarial debate is a variant of the debate ploy, a common pseudoscience tactic. At first glance having two teams present competing positions seems entirely reasonable, but this approach only works if the intended audience can effectively assess the arguments presented.
...I prefer a different description of NIPCC reports – one that may not be fit for publication.

Michael Brown: The Conversation

I am an observational astronomer