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

[GIGObuster]

I guess the conspirators got him…

That still shows indeed the march of science, somehow the conclusions that are more supported are deemed false by a few blogessors just because of the progress itself.

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

Wow, not even wrong.

The cites are not supposed to come from science but from the “intrepid” reporters that have uncovered the truth[sup]TM[/sup], lets see them.

LOL. “Supposed to”? According to whom? You? You’ve already it made it clear that you believe that anyone who questions MMCO2GW is ignorant. You’ve already it made it clear that no cite would be acceptable to you.

As to cites coming from “intrepid” reporters, that would be the secondary opinions of the IPCC reports (or the opinions of the opinions of the IPCC reports). I’ll wait for the new-and-unvetted IPCC report to be vetted by ALL groups (even the ones you don’t like). And the vetting process must include access to ALL of the IPCC’s data and processes.

I can hardly wait to see how the “the-science-is-settled IPCC” handles the current efforts by “pre-approved climate scientist” to discover how the oceans have been absorbing the global heat that must have caused the previous IPCC global warming predictions to fail to predict the actual global temps. The current search of the oceans proves that even the IPCC doesn’t believe the science is settled (as if science is ever settled).

[GIGObuster]

@doorhinge

LOL. “Supposed to”? According to whom? You? You’ve already it made it clear that you believe that anyone who questions MMCO2GW is ignorant. You’ve already it made it clear that no cite would be acceptable to you.

It is very simple, when NASA, NOAA, and virtually all scientific organizations involved in the issue report that you are wrong, it is indeed very important to cite good sources, as shown, your sources are not scientific or they failed already to get support in academia.

@doorhinge

As to cites coming from “intrepid” reporters, that would be the secondary opinions of the IPCC reports (or the opinions of the opinions of the IPCC reports). I’ll wait for the new-and-unvetted IPCC report to be vetted by ALL groups (even the ones you don’t like). And the vetting process must include access to ALL of the IPCC’s data and processes.

Not very reassuring when you insist on relying on sources that are wrong in virtually all of what they report on the IPCC.

@doorhinge

I can hardly wait to see how the “the-science-is-settled IPCC” handles the current efforts by “pre-approved climate scientist” to discover how the oceans have been absorbing the global heat that must have caused the previous IPCC global warming predictions to fail to predict the actual global temps. The current search of the oceans proves that even the IPCC doesn’t believe the science is settled (as if science is ever settled).

And another straw man, the scientists are not reporting that is settled, what it can say is that the prevalence of the evidence is telling us to act, for even less probabilities of harm we decided to act to regulate tobacco smoke.

This was also ignored then:

RealClimate: Unsettled Science

The phrase “the science is settled” is associated almost 100% with contrarian comments on climate and is usually a paraphrase of what ‘some scientists’ are supposed to have said. The reality is that it depends very much on what you are talking about and I have never heard any scientist say this in any general context – at a recent meeting I was at, someone claimed that this had been said by the participants and he was roundly shouted down by the assembled experts.

The reason why no scientist has said this is because they know full well that knowledge about science is not binary – science isn’t either settled or not settled. This is a false and misleading dichotomy. Instead, we know things with varying degrees of confidence – for instance, conservation of energy is pretty well accepted, as is the theory of gravity (despite continuing interest in what happens at very small scales or very high energies) , while the exact nature of dark matter is still unclear. The forced binary distinction implicit in the phrase is designed to misleadingly relegate anything about which there is still uncertainty to the category of completely unknown. i.e. that since we don’t know everything, we know nothing.

In the climate field, there are a number of issues which are no longer subject to fundamental debate in the community. The existence of the greenhouse effect, the increase in CO2 (and other GHGs) over the last hundred years and its human cause, and the fact the planet warmed significantly over the 20th Century are not much in doubt. IPCC described these factors as ‘virtually certain’ or ‘unequivocal’. The attribution of the warming over the last 50 years to human activity is also pretty well established – that is ‘highly likely’ and the anticipation that further warming will continue as CO2 levels continue to rise is a well supported conclusion. To the extent that anyone has said that the scientific debate is over, this is what they are referring to. In answer to colloquial questions like “Is anthropogenic warming real?”, the answer is yes with high confidence.

But no scientists would be scientists if they thought there was nothing left to find out. Think of the science as a large building, with foundations reaching back to the 19th Century and a whole edifice of knowledge built upon them. The community spends most of its time trying to add a brick here or a brick there and slowly adding to the construction. The idea that the ‘science is settled’ is equivalent to stating that the building is complete and that nothing further can be added. Obviously that is false – new bricks (and windows and decoration and interior designs) are being added and argued about all the time. However, while the science may not be settled, we can still tell what kind of building we have and what the overall picture looks like. Arguments over whether a single brick should be blue or yellow don’t change the building from a skyscraper to a mud hut.

The IPCC reports should be required reading for anyone who thinks that scientists think that the ‘science is settled’ – the vast array of uncertainties that are discussed and dissected puts that notion to bed immediately.

[FXMastermind]

I’m not worried about sea levels, says climate change expert

The 92-year-old now says he is “not worried about sea-level rises”, which he believes will rise two foot a century “at worst”, and complains “the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion”.

Professor Lovelock is most famous for his Gaia theory, formulated in the 1960s to explain the Earth’s environment as a regulating organism to sustain life.
The theory has been the foundation of many of the beliefs around climate change and energy production.

In an interview with the Guardian, Prof Lovelock has now said he had become more of “a thinker” since retiring from practising science, and is now moving to a seaside home in Dorset.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9340819/Im-not-worried-about-sea-levels-says-climate-change-expert.html

This is almost like the Pope turning around and saying Catholicism is nonsense.

Speaking about environmentalists, he said: “It’s just the way the humans are that if there’s a cause of some sort, a religion starts forming around it.

Something I noticed years ago. But nice to see a real climate expert say it.

“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion. I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use.

“The greens use guilt. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting CO2 in the air.”

Especially when while you are telling people how bad they are, you are doing the exact same thing you are ranting against.

Earlier this year, he admitted he had made “mistake” in being so certain about some of his climate predictions, conceding he had been “extrapolating too far”.

Someday most alarmists will come to realize this.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

This is almost like the Pope turning around and saying Catholicism is nonsense.
Something I noticed years ago. But nice to see a real climate expert say it.

Nope, he is like a retired Mormon telling the Pope what to do. He is not really an expert climate scientist and he retired from ecology work a long time ago.

And as a result he gets things wrong:

In his most recent book, “The Vanishing Face of Gaia”,[22] he rejects scientific modelling that disagrees with the scientific findings that sea levels are rising faster, and Arctic ice is melting faster, than the models predict and he suggests that we may already be beyond the tipping point of terrestrial climate into a permanently hot state. Given these conditions, Lovelock expects human civilization will be hard pressed to survive. He expects the change to be similar to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum when atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 450 ppm. At that point the Arctic Ocean was 23 °C and had crocodiles in it,[23][24] with the rest of the world mostly scrub and desert.

Indeed, he even recently gave up on that, so the Telegraph must think that a “never mind” is ok for current contrarian expertise.

Someday the denier media like the Telegraph will learn about false equivalency. And what an expert is supposed to be.

Potholer54: "9. Climate Change - Meet the Scientists"

[GIGObuster]

Forgot the link in the previous post regarding the last book from Lovelock:

James Lovelock

[FXMastermind]

While I disagreed with his doomsday nonsense, he seems to have become far more rational of late.

In an April 2012 interview, aired on MSNBC, Lovelock stated that he had been “alarmist”, using the words “All right, I made a mistake,” about the timing of climate change and noted the documentary An Inconvenient Truth and the book The Weather Makers as examples of the same kind of alarmism. Lovelock still believes the climate to be warming although the rate of change is not as he once thought, he admitted that he had been “extrapolating too far." He believes that climate change is still happening, but it will be felt farther in the future.[32] Of the claims “the science is settled” on global warming he states:[33]
“One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”[33]
He criticizes environmentalists for treating global warming like a religion.[33]

James Lovelock

“One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

Words to learn from, oh internet non scientist, non climate experts, who spew forth nonsense daily.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

While I disagreed with his doomsday nonsense, he seems to have become far more rational of late.
James Lovelock - Wikipedia

“One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

Words to learn from, oh internet non scientist, non climate experts, who spew forth nonsense daily.

And he still gets it wrong, both in the alarmist and now the lukewarmer flavors.

Lovelock Gives Conservatives Another Occasion To Dodge Climate Science

In a recent interview with MSNBC.com, scientist James Lovelock said that he was too “alarmist” in his previous statements about the consequences of global warming and he now appears to be overcorrecting in the opposite direction. **While conservative media have used his reversal to question the scientific consensus on climate change, the truth is that Lovelock’s views were never in line with mainstream climate science.
**
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a large group of experts that synthesizes climate research into massive reports on the state of the science. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2009 that Lovelock, who is known for formulating the Gaia hypothesis in the 1960s, considered those reports “too optimistic, constrained by ‘consensus’ (a word that makes his teeth itch) and wedded to computer models.” Climate experts, in turn, distanced themselves from Lovelock’s doomsday rhetoric. The IPCC’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, told Agence France-Presse in September 2009 that Lovelock’s predictions were “highly improbable”; RealClimate.org, a blog written by climate scientists, noted in 2006 that Lovelock’s claims weren’t supported by scientific research.

Watch the video I linked to, it is a very good lesson on who to look for regarding who is an expert and who is not. The reality is that it is the contrarians that do rely a lot on non experts, scientists who are retired for a long time in their fields, or experts in other fields that are not what you really need.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

And he still gets it wrong

Now you know how rational skeptics feel about your doomsday views.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Now you know how rational skeptics feel about your doomsday views.

Personal attack noted.

In any case, you are wrong, but the only thing that is needed to correct that is to consult the experts, not popular media that has plenty of history of getting all sciences wrong. Specially when they do not tell their audience the context that they omit regarding the “experts” that they use.

[FXMastermind]

Explaining why your opinion is not believed is the opposite of a personal comment.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Explaining why your opinion is not believed is the opposite of a personal comment.

Not accurate, your opinion does not mean that many others do respect it.

Besides, that “opinion” is coming from what the scientists report, your beef is indeed with them, so deal with them, otherwise you are just making a personal observation as a way to avoid dealing with the fact that the sources of information you have are pitiful and cause many contrarians to get it wrong.

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

It is very simple, when NASA, NOAA, and virtually all scientific organizations involved in the issue report that you are wrong, it is indeed very important to cite good sources, as shown, your sources are not scientific or they failed already to get support in academia.

(shortened for clarity)

LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge
LOL. “Supposed to”? According to whom? You? You’ve already it made it clear that you believe that anyone who questions MMCO2GW is ignorant. You’ve already it made it clear that no cite would be acceptable to you.

Is that the statement that you believe NASA, NOAA, and virtually all scientific organizations involved in the issue report that I’m wrong about? Really?

I’m still waiting for the new-and-hopefully-improved IPCC report to clear up all of the confusion and previous false claims being bandied about. I will, of course, expect the new IPCC report to be vetted by ANY and ALL scientific organization and I will expect the IPCC to share all of their data and processes this time.

[GIGObuster]

@doorhinge

(shortened for clarity)

LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge
LOL. “Supposed to”? According to whom? You? You’ve already it made it clear that you believe that anyone who questions MMCO2GW is ignorant. You’ve already it made it clear that no cite would be acceptable to you.

Is that the statement that you believe NASA, NOAA, and virtually all scientific organizations involved in the issue report that I’m wrong about? Really?

Barely, you are wrong on all the rest of what you claimed, again, point to a reputable scientist that support your points, what you need to be aware of is that you ignore that history and time is not on their side.

@doorhinge

I’m still waiting for the new-and-hopefully-improved IPCC report to clear up all of the confusion and previous false claims being bandied about. I will, of course, expect the new IPCC report to be vetted by ANY and ALL scientific organization and I will expect the IPCC to share all of their data and processes this time.

And what were those false claims?

As I mentioned before the citations point to the science, to published reports and even scientists that are contributing to the IPCC, point to the false claims.

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

Barely, you are wrong on all the rest of what you claimed, again, point to a reputable scientist that support your points, what you need to be aware of is that you ignore that history and time is not on their side.
And what were those false claims?

As I mentioned before the citations point to the science, to published reports and even scientists that are contributing to the IPCC, point to the false claims.

The new-and-improved IPCC hasn’t been released yet. If the 1st one had been correct, there would have been no need for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th report. The IPCC is still struggling to prove it’s original claims. I wish them the best of luck.

And you’ve made it quite clear that you believe that anyone who objects to or questions MMCO2GW is ignorant. There are thousands of sites available that point out the questionable behaviors of the IPCC BUT it’s all been discussed before. No one is changing their mind.

We need a new report to jump start an impartial conversation.

[GIGObuster]

@doorhinge

The new-and-improved IPCC hasn’t been released yet. If the 1st one had been correct, there would have been no need for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th report. The IPCC is still struggling to prove it’s original claims. I wish them the best of luck.

Yep, as mentioned before what we have here is a problem with dealing with the march of time and science.

@doorhinge

And you’ve made it quite clear that you believe that anyone who objects to or questions MMCO2GW is ignorant. There are thousands of sites available that point out the questionable behaviors of the IPCC BUT it’s all been discussed before. No one is changing their mind.

I have shown evidence that so far, that is the case, the thousands of sites you depend on are ignorant and even can be accused of fraud; but over here in this thread there is ignorance galore, even on what the IPCC is.

@doorhinge

We need a new report to jump start an impartial conversation.

The betting line is that no report will be ever good enough for the denier media out there.

Except the one that released the first mostly limited to England Hockey stick graph, that remains the ultimate truth for many contrarians.

[Kimstu]

@doorhinge

The new-and-improved IPCC hasn’t been released yet. If the 1st one had been correct, there would have been no need for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th report.

You drastically misunderstand the purpose of the IPCC and the nature of climate science. Scientific knowledge is cumulative over time, especially in a very complex and rapidly advancing field such as climate science, and even the best assessment of the current knowledge of such a field soon becomes out-of-date. The IPCC’s multiple Assessment Reports are updates, not fixes.

[GIGObuster]

Indeed Kimstu.

I should add a warning to these threads, others that do understand the science should be careful to not wonder aloud how it is possible that a graph of past temperatures from an early report by the IPCC, is accepted by contrarians as “the truth” while better supported graphs published more recently by the same organization are just lies.

You will only get a headache.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

I should add a warning to these threads, others that do understand the science should be careful to not wonder aloud how it is possible that a graph of past temperatures from an early report by the IPCC, is accepted by contrarians as “the truth” while better supported graphs published more recently by the same organization are just lies.

Yeah, cause wondering aloud is dangerous. Also, the evidence for much warmer periods than the present is overwhelming. In fact, it’s beyond reproach.

The people trying to sell you that now is the warmest ever, and we are in grave danger, they are deluded.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Yeah, cause wondering aloud is dangerous. Also, the evidence for much warmer periods than the present is overwhelming. In fact, it’s beyond reproach.

The people trying to sell you that now is the warmest ever, and we are in grave danger, they are deluded.

So much for telling others that you understand the science. Scientists already know that there were past warmer periods, and that CO2 was one of the elements of those past warnings. Thanks to paleoclimatology is that science can tell you that as CO2 has not reformed from what it did in the past, it is clear that we can not go using the atmosphere as a sewer and to not expect that to not drive the current warming observed.

http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/151191/

Concept 6a. The overwhelming consensus of scientific studies on climate indicates that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the latter part of the 20th century is very likely due to human activities, primarily from increases in greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.

While there is public debate about the attribution of recent climate change, it is not a strong feature of the discussions of climate scientists. or the peer reviewed literature. This is why this document uses the strong language “overwhelming consensus”. A variety of studies have noted that while most American adults believe climate change is happening, less than half of American adults think that climate scientists agree-- i.e., that there is a scientific consensus-- that human activities are a major cause of warming.