Do you actually read the things you copy and paste?
Yes, do you? The article continues to explain that the range is wider as the IPCC is adding an extra very unlikely scenario that they did not included before.
So as per your own words, do not forget that the article you claim to have read recommends Skeptical Science as a respected source, so you need to read a lot about the common myths that your likely sources of information an spin are coming from:
Apples and oranges. There is not a 33 percent chance that smoking is killing anyone at all. That chance is 100 percent. There is, according to this report, a five percent chance that human activity is *not *actually making the earth warmer, and the whole thing was basically an “oopsie”. That is actually a lot higher than I would have thought. I thought we were in “nearly certain” territory for human-caused warming, and that the only real uncertainty among climate scientists was about how much warming will occur in what time frame.
So I guess my point is that this 95 percent number is not impressing me the way it is apparently supposed to.
:rolleyes:
I was afraid of that, what you are demanding is not science. The point of the smoking was not to compare apples and oranges but the levels of danger a society uses to then act.
Once again, you are acting like if you can just wash away the fact that lower levels of certainty are accounted for, your say so was mistaken and so the conclusion you are reaching here is wrong also.
What it seems it that the probability you are thinking is a bug is in reality a feature, the mountain of evidence is telling the scientists that there are many lines of evidence that show how the warming is caused by our emissions, each of those lines of evidence has been tested many times for many years, the levels of confidence are just reflecting all those checks made to those lines of evidence. The point here is that your say so that “it is not impressive” is not looking at the evidence or thinking that the number the IPCC is reporting is not based on observations also, not just the consensus of the scientists.
But as I pointed before the IPCC by its nature is conservative, as pointed before I do think that that is OK for policy reasons as one has to see that that result is reached by taking into account most of the evidence and probabilities of diverse studies into account.
If you think about it, you would realize that then it would not be scientific to reach 100%. And if that 95% is the conservative estimate of the levels humans are causing the current warming, one would be really reckless to ignore that many others report that the results of the warming that is very likely to follow are not likely to be as nice as the few sources that have an interest in seeding FUD are assuming.
(shortened for clarity)
LOL. Another insult followed by your disclaimer that an insult is not an insult. You’re a hoot.
It appears that even you admit that the previous IPCC reports were wrong. I’m giving the IPCC yet another chance to explain “their” science. Maybe they’ll get it right this time???
The latest IPCC report WILL BE QUESTIONED, just any any other scientific report would be questioned, whether you like it or not. If it doesn’t stand up to public scrutiny (yet again), the public will not be convinced of the IPCC’s version of “global warming” or the IPCC’s claim that man-made CO2 is the cause.
It’s interesting that you’ve chosen to defend a report that hasn’t been made public. Why do you assume the latest IPCC report will be any more accurate or provable than their previous reports? The IPCC’s history suggests that it’s data and test proceedures won’t be made available for public review. :eek: The IPCC’s history suggest that global warming zealots will once again claim that there is a “concensus” among scientists at the same time they are denouncing all of the scientific opposition. A “concensus” with massive opposition??? How is that possible? Did the IPCC use the same type of man-made inputs for their computer modeling that produced their original reports? Nah. The IPCC has convienently lost that data. There is certainly a “concensus” but only among the true believers. :smack: Not so much in the “Can You Provide Actual Proof” camp.
I suspect the IPCC report’s release will result in an increase in the number of man-made CO2 global warming zealots who once again claim that “the science is settled”. Science is never settled. Even the IPCC has changed their reports.
All the IPCC has to do is provide actual evidence (NOT claims) that global warming exists. I’ll wait for their next report and your next personal jab.
Once again do not misrepresent me, the insults go to the makers of those myths, that you follow them is just ignorance, that is all.
Nope, that is called “the march of science” maybe you heard about it before, while many do know that Einstein was more accurate than Newton, Newton’s equations are still used today in less precise settings.
[Sniped really silly remarks]
And once again ignorance shows, the sources you depend on are lying to you. The Data was not lost, it is still available and the “expert” deniers know this already but are not telling that after 4 years that point was debunked.
And yet, more ignorance, The IPCC points at and categorizes the best reports and papers from climate science, that is the actual evidence. The reality is that outside the IPCC the consensus is almost the same as what the IPCC reports. The simple fact is that the contributors to the IPCC are also scientists that are in practice doing yet another peer review to the best and new papers published on the subject. The report is the result of that extra review to already published science and reports.
(The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC)
You have a YouTube! You didn’t say you had a YouTube. That changes everything. Now there is NO reason for the IPCC to release anymore reports. The science must be settled. There must be an actual concensus. :smack: LOL.
As was mentioned in the YouTube, "Don’t respond with, it’s all an IPCC hoax and a tax scam and computer models are wrong." Of course, why would the YouTube creator want to address any questions brought about by the fact-checking of the evidence presented in the previous IPCC reports? Questions must be un-scientific? Questions must suggest that the “concensus” isn’t really a “concensus”? If the “science is settled”, why is there a need for another IPCC report?
I hope the new-and-improved (with brighteners?) IPCC report finally clears up all of the questions about global warming and previous IPCC failures.
How about that 99+% “virtually certain” level? That is where I thought the climate scientists were. But apparently not.
And the attempt at killing the messenger fallacy is noticed, as it is your lack of acknowledgment that you were misled by others on the missing data.
First, the maker of the Youtube is Science writer Peter Hadfield, and he linked to the data he quotes, you really need to pay attention on how silly the points of the deniers are and are exposed by the real science.
And that is a misrepresentation once again, even the OP articles mention that the latest IPCC report is not going to be much of a surprise as many of the scientists whose research will be included in the report are already available like the papers from Kevin Trenberth. The “failures” that you are talking about are still just the march of science bringing better evidence and tools forward, it is the deniers the ones that are shown to be even more wrong after every new report. Far from finding failures what it is found is more certainty for many items from previous reports, and some get a notice for more information needed, same old science in action. but as Richard Alley mentions we know enough already to act even if some items are more uncertain.
The take home lesson is that not even biologists that point at evolution evidence do not talk about those levels of certainty in their reports. There is always some uncertainty that has to be acknowledged, The uncertainty observed in this case is telling us that we need to act now, and in fact less certainty but also overwhelming evidence was used when we decided to do something about our bad water in the cities, the phosphate contamination by detergents on rivers and lakes, ozone depletion, acid rain, etc. in none of those cases we waited for scientists to tell us we needed to be 99% certain.
One of the better ways science advances is, not so much by discovering truth, but by rejecting falsehood and error. When a particular idea is shown wrong, everyone benefits: we know that the truth is somewhere else than there.
Sherlock Holme’s adage. “Whatever remains…”
The Theory of Evolution succeeded, primarily by knocking every other theory out of the ring. It won, not only by being better at explaining the world, but also by being the last theory standing. It isn’t perfect; but every other model was vastly and demonstrably worse.
Climate change is falling into that category today. The competing hypotheses, including “it’s natural change” and “its driven by variations in solar output” and others are all falling by the wayside, having been shown to be incorrect. The loyal opposition doesn’t talk much about warming Mars any more. Why? Because it was wrong, and was shown to be wrong. The impossible is being eliminated. Whatever remains…
This is exactly the kind of practical advice I am looking for to make money off the AGW scare. Unfortunately no one seems to be heeding it. I have noticed very anecdotally that even some of the wealthy AGW alarmists seem to love buying beachfront.
When they start shorting it then I will start thinking they are believing their own message. Until then it is still gonna seem more like a fun new Great Cause to me.
Rich people will just move, they are rich.
Dang, even the parodies of the “skeptics” are pathetic.
Of course as you **never **had a good explanation why we could not follow similar solutions that government and industry applied with issues like this one as we did in the past with bad water in the cities, the phosphate contamination by detergents on rivers and lakes, ozone depletion, acid rain, etc. one can continue to dismiss your say so’s.
The really sad thing about AR5’s predictions of doom is that when in due (short) time they are shown to be wrong or vastly exagerated, the people’s confidence in science will be shaken.
Next time we hear 95% cofidence by 97% of scientists we might think “yeah, right”
I wonder what the final figure for forcings will be? THAT is the only real number. Although I imagine it’s be “95% it is between 1.2 and 6”
Read it again, the 95% confidence refers to the confidence scientists have that Humans are responsible for the current warming, warming that also goes to the oceans. It does not refer to the confidence on “doom”. This is a straw man.
And once again you did not read the reports, the low level is expected if we virtually go cold turkey on the global warming gas emissions, not likely and not recommended. IIUC the bit of the low level has been added to make a point on us doing better than expected. The reality is still that we are more likely to see more than 2 degrees of warming coming.
I love it that the IPCC cannot get 100% agreement on such a softball statement which would get, I’m sure, more than 90% agreement by science-based sceptics.
I hope that AR5 finally shortens the gigantic error bars the love so much or at least present scenarios that don’t cover 1.5° to 6°C by 2100.
Unless there is the “doom” the rest of the report is pointless.
I guess losing or having to spend a lot of money on coastal cities is pointless.
This is ridiculous, the fact that humanity will not end does not mean that there is a lot of problems that can be less troublesome or costly if we act now rather than later. Doing nothing means that only if you assume the perfect behavior form all the states of the earth that we will avoid also wars and suffering caused by the human displacement this is bound to make.
Indeed the point stands, we ignored the ones that recommended not doing anything about CFCs and eventually we dodged a lot of pain in the future by controlling those gases that damage the ozone layer.
http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/articles/view/3113
So it is that we have to dismiss the ones that tell us that we should not do anything about this issue, I prefer to have some inconveniences now rather than huge problems in the future, even if they do not reach your preferred doom levels.
And once again you did not read the previous posts, you **really **do not know what science is.