Hadn't known that but it certainly doesn't surprise me.
and run them through several of his models designed to show human influence more than to rule it out.
I detect a hint of bias in that statement. The models either include human factors or don't. The results either show similarity to the observational data, or don't. That's how human influence is assessed.
With no referenced study here I would reserve judgment as a juror before the evidence was corroborated by less-biased peer review.
That's how science is supposed to work, at least.
Selling a climate tax globally is going to be mighty tough for a while.
Just checked: I still possess a nasal organ on my visage.
“Peter A. Stott is a climate scientist and Manager of Understanding and Attributing Climate Change at the UK Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, U.K.[1]
He was a lead author of the IPCC WG I report, chapter 9, for the AR4 released in 2007.”
The whole mess stinks to me - between those who have committed themselves to their hand and have gone “all-in” and those waiting for the next flop, the size of the winning pot is the most important thing.