Leaked IPCC report: 90% confidence in AGW is now 95% -- and sea level will rise!

Great Debates
201

There is a very good reason to suspect the solar cycle influences the Earth’s climate, backed by plenty of physics and sound science. What is pseudo-science is to ignore this, or insist that the CO2 forcing will dominate all other factors. Nobody actually knows that, and the feedback mechanisms are certainly the largest unknown for current earth science.

The skeptics for good reason suspect the far reaching and doom and gloom predictions based on unproven assumptions about earth’s climate system.

There actually is good reason theoretically to consider CO2 the main driver of long term climate change, but in regards to long term changes, not short cycles or even a century long or a 500 century long change of climate.

This is because the last 18,000 years (the Holocene) shows clear evidence of drastic changes. Much larger than any we have experienced in the last 150 years. These were not CO2 driven. It’s part of what makes the “CO2 as climate God” claim hard to follow.

Then there is the absurd position that anyone who doesn’t just get in line with whatever proclamation comes spewing out of some “experts” mouth, who doesn’t agree with their " final word" on things, is some sort of anti-science fool.

202

Misleading, and a straw man, scientists already do take the sun into account. the pseudoscience comes from telling others that scientists do not take the sun into account.

203

As usual, the ones mistakenly claiming that the sun is the driver ignore that for practical purposes it is mostly the background, very important, but not the item behind the current warming.

204

So, why debate with (general) you?
We can both be verecundiaming each other.
I’ve read the sources. There’s no debate if you simply reply “read thing by anohter person”.

Ok.

No, I’m not one even remotely.

Since the phrase was “ignorant in science” I said “no”, cuz I’m not untrained or ignorant in science.

I can’t back statements I haven’t made.
If one simply repeats without understanding there is no merit in that person, even if what is repeated is true.
Really? You’re doin’ the anit-vaxer thing now? Not even worth responding. Believe as you may please.

205

Sure you are. You said, “In science money comes with strings attached.” Doesn’t that suggest that the holders of those purse strings are manipulating the results of scientific inquiry to their ends?

Science isn’t one skill. A physicist has little insight necessarily in biology. And unless you’re a climate scientist, your opinion on the field, is worth very little.

Again, you are thinking you have understanding, but are likely too ignorant to know how little you know. It’s a complex issue and I don’t have eight years to devote to learning the groundwork, so I leave it to the experts.

You just take your gut instinct and think that’s worth the same as actual knowledge, and that’s scary.

To be clear, you’re ignoring 97% of the experts in the field based on your personal untrained intuition. How is that unlike the anti-vaxer movement?

You think 97% of the experts are wrong. And you aren’t an expert. It’s absurd.

206

By your own opinion, your opinion is meaningless then.

That’s ridiculous.

207

I think you’re just piling on because of you perceived a chance to make points for your team.

97%. If what I say is true? Do you think NASA is lying to you? Yes or no?

It’s 97% because it’s a complex issue and 3% of people can be expected to either not understand or have other beliefs that are stronger than the evidence they see. I find it hilarious that you think a 97% consensus is a point in your favor.

Some experts are skewed. Around 3%, I’d say. :smiley:

But in any case, the vast, vast majority of experts think it’s real. I side with them, just like I side with the vast, vast majority of experts who think vaccination is a good idea. Or the vast, vast majority of experts who think evolution is real.

208

No, it is not. For practical reasons one should not rely on a poster from an anomalous message board, therefore then one has to link to supported evidence or expert opinion, it is just common courtesy to show all that one can identify good evidence from the bad and get feedback.

As even scientists (yes a few confirmed that via messaging or linking to their work) told me many times before that I get it, can you tell us who are the scientists that tell you that you are the beesnees?

209

I don’t have an opinion on the science. Like you, I don’t have the grounding to assess it intelligently. That’s why I let experts interpret it and accept their advice.

You literally think that you, an untrained novice, has as much understanding as a PhD level expert? Honestly?

210

Or an **anonymous **message board, but I think we all are the former. :smiley:

211

I can confidently say that the largest part of scientific research is not funded by people who “Go ahead, do science”.
Most research has a (non nefarious) specific purpose. A friend of mine (her research lab, I mean) just got a two-million dollar grant to research weight-loss drugs. The money comes from a pharmaceutical company that, of course, hope to get a shitton of money selling the drugs (should they work).

Whatever the result, the pharma compnay will decide if her lab is good enough for another grant.

If “Let’s Save This Species Cuz It’s Kewl” gives you a grant, you know what results they expect. If you return a result of “This species is invasive, we should cull it”, you can imagine the pipeline from LSTSCIK is gonna get dry. You integrity will say what you do.

Scientists that don’t return result that support AGW, don’t get money.

No conspiracy.
No mustache twirling.

I responded to the question.
I know a ton of biology, physics, and chemistry. Took 6 calculus, 5 algebras and 5 statistics courses in college so I know my way around regression, trends, and so on.

If only expert on the field can talk on an anonymous message board, then just cancel GD.

Ok, I will now treat -as per your very own suggestion- your opinions on the subject as being worth very little.

Since you have no idea of my knowledge on the subject, you opinion is not relevant.
It’s not gut. In fact the gut instinct is to follow the trend.

It’s not untrained, by far.
Since I’m not ignoring the 97% then I don’t know what you’re talking about.
In fact the original 97% comes from a sample of 77 people (out of 3000) given two softball questions.
Those questions get a 90% at least in science-based sceptic circles.

212

You are only showing that you ignore that others confirmed that, not only by asking the scientists, but also by checking their papers.

213

(shortened for clarity)

LOL. The IPCC is only 25 years old and has been struggling to convince people that their “scientific” opinion is the only scientific opinion anyone should listen to. Unfortunately for the IPCC, the more they talk and the longer they talk, the more doubt it creates in people’s minds.

Maybe the new-and-improved IPCC report will clear up everyone questions?

The current period of global warming began during the last ice age. Considering the very long history of global tempurature swings between global cooling and global warming that were somehow accomplished without any input from mankind, I think the IPCC has a lot of ‘splain’ to do if it wants to CONVINCE people that man-made CO2 is responsible for the current plateau of global temps.

214

This should be a softball question for you. Please clarify the numbers you believe were used to arrive at “97.1%”. Do you believe 100 MMCO2GW scientists chose to answer the question(s)? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000?

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

215

Read it again, I was replying to the misleading part that the debate is just going for 25 years.

216

You need to understand first how polling works. The previous ones actually confirmed previous research by Oreskes and others, what we have now is yet **another **confirmation.

And as usual, one has to add that information like this has to be denied by the fake skeptics. One of the basic identifiers of pseudoscience is the trait of telling others that “there is a controversy among the scientists, you need to teach it”. A classic creationism tactic.

217

I was referring to what GIGObuster has said, and how he has said it. I did not refer to the report you invoked. It is foolish of you to insist that my words refer to something I had no intention of discussing.

I disagree that there are any such things. You’re making an assertion without evidence. This is the sort of thing that some of us here, even without much knowledge of planetary science, consider unconvincing. My belief is that the scientific consensus has been gradually building, but the debate ceased to exist a decade ago. The deniers are in the position of evolution deniers. They can only manufacture a spurious pseudo-debate by contrivances and bad statistical methods.

As noted, in many cases they aren’t even scientists, but still get called to testify to (Republican led) Congressional committees. That’s not only rotten science, it’s rotten politics.

218

Looking at long-term graphs of temperature, you see lots of pauses, and even small local declines. There is a kind of stair-step character to the curve. Steep, short increases, followed by longer, slower declines. The frog climbs up the side of the well three feet, then slides backward a foot. But overall, the curve is upward, in a fairly regular way.

And, as asked, has anyone proposed a mechanism by which the warming would cease? Does any chemist speak of a “saturation point” or “breakeven point” or “feedback effect” in global warming? For instance, if very high concentrations CO2 were found to become white and reflective, bouncing away sunlight, that might be a negative feedback mechanism, increasing the earth’s albedo, and reducing absorbed energy. But…has anyone actually proposed or observed such an effect?

(I remember the original “Gaia” writer saying that the earth has such negative feedback mechanisms; he suggested high heat would cause high clouds which would reflect too much light/heat. He also went further and suggested heat would cause the flowering of light-colored plants which would reflect might light. Some of this might have been true, although I think he was exaggerating. But such small negative effects don’t seem to be cutting the mustard when it comes to correcting for the millions – billions? – of tons of CO2 that our industry has put into the air. We seem to have swamped the earth’s natural corrective cycles. The ecosphere is fairly good at healing itself, but if you drop a nuke on it, it isn’t going to get better.)

219

Please tell me I am miss reading Table 3 from your link…97% who have stated a position are in agreement. Do only 34% of scientists provide an opinion in the 12,000 papers reviewed?

220

Be careful with the number you’re being given.

(Taken form this horrible evil puppy-kicking orphan-rapin oil-industry shill mayo-on-hot-dog double-dipping site.

97% looks like a lot, but then you see the real numbers.

12000 papers on climate change
8000 not counted because the authors “don’t mention the cause”

So now the 97% is only of 1/3 of all papers on,cimate change.

Then they have the dodgy category of “implicitly endorse”

Things like " Proponents argue that sizable reductions are necessary as a hedge against unacceptably rapid changes in climate", “As environmental issues, and the issue of global warming in particular, rise to the top of the international agenda”, and “.** Emission of CH4, a gas implicated in global warming**” are the pieces de resistance on AGW.

This category is about 3000 papers.

So now you’ve only got 1000.

But only 65 actually and directly say it.

Also, the softball question is not quite the anyone you should be asking.

What percentage of the rise in temperatura since 1950 is caused by the increase of CO2 caused by human activity? Is the real question not “humans have caused”.