Damn, bald statements with capital letters! Not much we can do against that. Magiver wins again!
Nope.
History shows how evidence guided the way, not faith.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
This is a very ignorant thing to say, it is not just a transfer of wealth nor the main reason for it. Some opposition comes from people saying that cap and trade will benefit big industry more than it will hinder it. Making the opposition to cap and trade a “strange bedfellows” situation where people from the left and the right are complaining abut it.
The truth is that it will depend on how the plan will be implemented.
I’m afraid you are not getting the point, to me is clear that he was mentioning that because even scientists that have connections with big businesses agree with the current consensus. Funny religion that even has scientists from industry being convinced by the evidence.
I don’t think you got my point. There is a scientific process to solving a problem such as Global Warming and the idea of getting rid of CO2 as a solution has not been vetted in any process. It’s like saying wood burns, therefore we need to get rid of trees to stop fires. The correct process of science is to look at the problem and seek out solutions based on the best return of investment against a desired outcome.
This has not been done.
I don’t think this is also accurate.
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2007/05/new_ipcc_report.html
Based on the recommendations, there are many organizations and groups working for solutions based on the best projections.
Lets have another study or two. That will delay the climate rules long enough to make more money. It is a delaying tactic. The evidence is in, but the Indians have seen American businesses deny and insist on new studies. It still works. You can hold it off for decades while you pollute your little hearts away.
That and that there was every chance for someone to offer up competition. Half the money in the world was there begging to be used to disprove AGW.
Nitpicking at something or offering up an alternative are two entirely different things. Unless there’s an alternative, regardless of all nitpicks, you’re still left with AGW as being the safest bet of all one options. At the moment it’s either that aliens are causing the warming through secret means, or that humanity is causing it.
And overall, like GIGO mentions, we’re talking about the sum produce of science. Little shit aside, the IPCC reports are nothing more than a review of everything everyone has written. There’s dozen reconstructions of the temperature record. There’s a dozen reconstructions of temperature blame due to volcanic aerosols, solar irradiation, and greenhouse gases. There’s a dozen climate simulators each working out several possible scenarios. This isn’t stuff that’s been done by one guy sitting alone in his basement. There aren’t hidden graphs done by some group at Exxon which shows something other than the Hockey Puck, that was then censored.
With half of everyone having not only full freedom, but financial incentive to show that there isn’t a hockey puck, that greenhouse gases aren’t related to our current temperature, or that heating isn’t going to increase, a full half of scientific data out there should be being censored if we’re to believe that this isn’t a bland review of the current state of the science. But, there isn’t a 50% of evidence that goes against AGW.
That the rate of confidence, that error margins, etc. could be improved is certain; that climate simulators aren’t coded by the Beethoven’s of software engineering; This may all be true, but if there was actually any reason to doubt the IPPC, you’d expect equal opposite data that could use improved rates of confidence, better margins for error, and so forth. There’s full freedom to produce it, and plenty of money to have done so. It wouldn’t be any more accurate, perhaps, but at least you could say that there is an opposing side.
Unless you can explain why there isn’t an opposing side, you’re left accepting the current science.
I keep hearing sentiments like this in the media, from the mouths of the climate change deniers that have near 100% media exposure.
I think the problem isn’t with the IPCC report: it’s that the climate hasn’t been changing fast enough to scare the man on the street.
In the 90s many climate records were broken and as a result climate change forced its way to the top of the agenda.
In the 2000s, there hasn’t been enough scary shit happening, people are getting complacent, and want someone to say that the fire alarm was a drill. The media is obliging.
If in the next few years we resume breaking temperature records (as most models predict) people will be scared again and the nitpicks will be forgotten. It’s as simple (and sad) as that.
This has not been the result of a single innocent mistake by the IPCC. There are now multiple examples of bad science or conjecture making it into the actual synthesis report. And always, always they make the potential effects of global warming look worse.
There is evidence that the head of the IPCC knew that the Himalayan Glacier section of the latest report was based on non-existent science before it was published, but kept quiet anyway, because he thought it would help the politics of the thing. Also helpful: he was personally benefiting from the glacier scare to the tune of millions of dollars in grants to his own “Energy and Resources Unit” in New Delhi.
Now the Times is reporting that another claim that is in the actual synthesis report is based on nonexistence science - the report claims that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020. However:
It turns out that the claim comes from a non-peer reviewed paper written by a single analyst for a think tank.
There is another claim, that malaria rates could skyrocket as warmer temperatures expand the ‘malaria zone’. The cited author of this claim says it’s not true, and has asked to have his name taken off the IPCC’s list of contributors, but they have refused.
According to this article, the following errors also appear:
[ul]
[li]The Dutch government has demanded that the IPCC correct its erroneous assertion that half of the Netherlands is below sea level. Actually, it’s only about a quarter. [/li]
[li]A prediction about the impact of sea level increases on people living in the Nile Delta was taken from an unpublished student dissertation. [/li]
[li]The report contained inaccurate data about generating energy from waves and about the cost of nuclear power.[/li][/ul]
This article claims that a section on the impact of global warming was actually not based on any peer reviewed science, but on a magazine article written by two climate activists, one of which works for the World Wildlife Fund.
There’s a pattern developing here. Data that supports global warming or magnifies its potential impact apparently falls under a completely different standard of proof than data which contradicts it. This casts doubt on the IPCC’s overall report (although not on the individual pieces of peer-reviewed science within). But it does mean that the synthesis itself is questionable - without knowing what data is valid and what isn’t, it’s hard to accept the overall conclusions. It needs to be redone, from scratch.
For too long, the pro-global warming side has countered opposition with blustering about ‘deniers’ and with contempt for scientists who have not joined the bandwagon. If you believe in Global Warming, and wish to see something actually done about it, you should be on the front lines repudiating this behavior, because it’s destroying your credibility.
If you are so comfortable that the science is settled, you should be calling for a heavily-funded, widespread scientific review of the data, carried out under full transparency. You should be inviting critics with real credentials to join the review, valuing their skeptical input in the interests of removing all bias from the science.
If you continue to call opponents names and cover for the bad actors who are destroying the reputation of climate science, well, you’re not serving your own interests.
That confirms what I said about developing and moving forward with technology but the primary focus of CO2 (or the lack thereof) as an endgame solution is not viable nor has it been presented as a scientifically constructed solution to lowering temperatures.
Do I have to assume that you also did not read the thread Sam?
The summary in This article says it well:
Do you have a cite for that? What do you think is the point when the current CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been shown to raise the temperature?
Again, it is clear you have not read the thread. Do you really think repeating what the OP said changes what the Prime Minister of India said? There was already an acknowledgment that the error exaggerated the rate of glacial loss, however the glaciers are still receding, the science regarding the mechanism and the other predictions are not affected.
That right there is a very silly comment. Is Evolution a religion too? Any priests of Gravity in the house?
Global Warming is very simply the current best scientific understanding of what’s happening to our climate. The vast majority of trained climate scientists think it’s happening. And a very few trained climate scientists do not.
The fact that some untrained person like you or I has an opinion is worthless. Do you have an opinion on techniques to remove brain tumors? No, because you don’t understand enough to have an opinion worth hearing.
Why is AGW any different? Why should anyone care what an untrained person thinks? The fact that you can make a statement like “GW is a religion!” means that you are siding with a laughably tiny fringe opinion against the vast majority of trained climate scientists. Your blind and unthinking denial and choosing to side with the fringe makes you the religious one here, operating on utter blind faith against the vast majority of experts. :rolleyes:
BTW Sam, before you continue posting worthless opinions, the sources I quoted were or are involved with climate modeling.
When a source says something like “many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they’re bailing out” and it is a stinky lie, well, when are you going to learn to dismiss lousy citations?
Yes, I did. Did you read my message? It wasn’t so much about the Himalayan glaciers as it was about that issue being only one of many errors that have been discovered - all of them with the same pattern. The errors always magnify the impact. There are no mistakes which make warming look less critical. This starts to build a narrative that the IPCC is very selective in what it is selective about, and the result is a report that may be quite seriously biased in one direction.
Coupled with the indisputable fact that the CRU people at the very least tried to extrensively raise the bar on peer-review for critical papers and even tried to bully editors into not printing them, and you start to see that the deck is pretty heavily stacked.
This doesn’t mean that climate change isn’t happening, and that man isn’t contributing to it. It means that a number of scientists have crossed the line into advocacy, and in their zeal they have abandoned their own principles and as a result have damaged their credibility and given their opponents a pretty big hammer to use against them.
It also means (to me), that the IPCC synthesis report has been politically influenced. I always knew the ‘summary for policymakers’ was biased, but I had accepted the science in the full report. Now I can’t even say that.
Shouldn’t you be asking that of the IPCC? I mean really… Including a magazine article by the WWF as a citation? A student thesis?
OooooK, do I have to point that you are in trouble too for showing that you have not read the thread still? How can you even pretend to show that you can convince others?
Hint: There was already an acknowledgment that the makers of the secondary report need to have their feet put to the fire.
I guess I will have to assume that you always prepare your long posts by just reading the OP and deftly ignoring even relevant evidence that contradicts or modifies the OP’s points.
I read the damned thread, Gigobuster.
Hence my comment about errors that made their way into the synthesis report as well. Should I accuse you of not having read my message?
You do whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. In the meantime, other people can read the thread and make up their own mind. It’s not really you I’m speaking to anyway.
Cite? I will have to still conclude you may had read it, but did not pay attention.
The claim did not make it into the summary for policy makers, nor the overall synthesis report.
Me neither, they will have to conclude that you resort to cite opinions from Mc Experts.