It all still hinges on the soon-to-be-released IPCC report. Will it be convincing or will more errors be found in yet another attempt by the IPCC to prove what it can not prove? Will all scientific organizations be given access to the IPCC’s methods and madness or will their data still be considered to have “Top Secret” or “Your Eyes Only” restrictions?
Most, if not all, of the organizations you listed have produced flawed results based on faulty data gathering and political zealotry. Any honest scientific organization will correct their errors, recompile their data, and release corrected findings. Idology doesn’t replace common sense. Starting with expect results and manipulating man-made inputs to reach that conclusion isn’t a convincing argument. Claiming that everyone else is ignorant because they don’t believe what you tell them to believe is absurd and totally unconvincing.
Consensus means a general agreement. It’s generally understood that there is an actual consensus that people still disagree over whether global warming is currently happening and that the minimal amount of man-made CO2 is actually driving global temp decreases and increases.
The planet Earth will still continue to create, distribute, and absorb CO2 whether there are human beings or not.
The global warming zealots have been so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that many chose to ridiculed everyone who questions their findings (as if that will change anyone’s mind), selectively chose who may recieve redacted copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and concealed apparently buggy/faulty/disingenous computer code from being disclosed. That situation hasn’t changed.
Maybe the new-and-improved IPCC report will clear everything up? Or not.
You’re an apologist for bad predictions. You’re unwilling to deal with the reality that the ipcc predictions from 1990 were not accurate and your reasoning is that their models worked backwards therefore they’re accurate.
When the predictions fell flat they had to change the name from Global Warming to Global Climate Change and then went on to pronounce that we would experience more evil weather phenomenon because of it. When that didn’t happen the predictions were fewer evil weather events but they would be more intense.
If you desperately need to predict something, predict how much co2 electric cars will be emitting in 2050 because there’s going to be a shit ton of them driving around. Or maybe how much net co2 diesel trucks will be emitting with bio-diesel.
Full stop, once again this is very ignorant of how the IPCC works, they depend on the published science and it is not really hard to see where it is going; after all, and this is also part of the ignorance, **virtually all the science contributors to the IPCC come from those scientific organizations you are deriding with no evidence what so ever. **
LOL. Since the IPCC report hasn’t been officially released, what are you defending? Your “hope” that the IPCC will finally be vindicated? There has been much discussion about this issue over the last 25 years. Maybe the IPCC can finally provided a comprehensive argument that will convince people to change their minds. That means, of course, that it may just convince more people that the IPCC and it’s reports and science are a hoax.
Doubling down on the ignorant points, it is not my problem that you want to continue to tell others that you do not know that scientists that I have linked to during the last 5 years report.
Scientists that I have linked many times before like Kevin Trenberth are contributors to the IPCC, so once again you do not know what you are talking about, the IPPC depends on the published science for their reports, **it is just wishful thinking to expect a wildly different report from the already published science the IPCC report will be based on.
**
No, the only thing that is clear is that virtually all the predictions from the contrarian sources and the few skeptical scientists are the ones that have failed, and they are much worse than the still within the envelope ones from the IPCC, I already linked to the evidence of the surface temperatures, so everyone else can see that it is really you the one that has no evidence for your post here.
What I have seen is that the chart you link to is missing the error bars and probability envelope. Also the temperature data like the Hadcrut one is not the latest one and I already can see that Clive Best is not telling you the whole picture. And this late in the game I’m not willing to give deniers the benefit of the doubt anymore**, Clive Best is misleading others on purpose now by not posting the provability envelope and for not posting the latest changes that show that the temperature lines should be a little bit higher than the ones he is showing there. **
There is no excuse on the internet to not update or modify your charts when new data is available, and this support my past observation that denier sites usually do not remove information that is superseded or erroneous, so to the dismissed file they go.
He is not adding nor averaging the actual temperature reported by other more complete data sets that report more warming that Hadcrut. I do not wonder anymore why false skeptics point to cites like that.
That’s a nice way of saying they were wrong. This is our best guess RANGE and if it’s wrong well hell we’ll throw in an error rate to cover our modeling failure. Maybe they should call it Global Sorta Warming Until We Figure Out The Correct Rate. In the meantime civilization will continue to reduce co2 by the natural order of technological advances.
Ah, so the latest one is going to be accurate going forward. Got it. Humans are making it hotter at X rate except when it’s not. Then a new and improved prediction will come out. Lather rinse repeat until a prediction comes true.
No, the reality is that your cite was misleading, the data reported in the cite and the scientific papers support the point that I’m making, you are wrong, and you really need to check your cites; in my search it was amusing to see him going to the Met Office site to make even more denial points, not impressed at all by him. And you are wrong still.
Wrong as usual.
Like I pointed out in the Evolution thread:
The IPCC still got some items wrong like the actual loss of ice. But it is really silly for the contrarians to expect that finding one or a few wrong items means that we should overturn all the theory and science.
It does not work that way, the problem for the contrarian is that it has to also propose an alternative that works (that is, that explains all the current warming and the effects observed). Otherwise the needed changes and modifications actually tell the scientists that the overall current theory is more robust now with the slight changes that were and will be made.
There’s nothing misleading at all. It was a cite of the projections made and then the actual temperatures. The projections were wrong by quite a bit. It’s not up for debate.
It used a data set that has been pointed before as one that is not showing all the warming, together with the observation that the cite I made uses 4 other data sets that are more complete and shows the actual temperature as higher than the cite you used, then it is just generous to call your cite misleading. At this point one has to conclude that in reality you do not have a clue on how to identify a bad source from a bad one.
Nope, the fact that you used a cite that is not published on any scientific journal and it is cited by denial places is not up for debate, and it it was wrong also.
And you continue to tap dance around the item that the denial predictions were wrong and much lower that reality, it demonstrates that one should be weary of the denial sources that continue to use those few skeptical scientists that remain. Because, they are the ones that tell others that the coming warming will be at the low level of **their **estimates.
GIGO, do you have a link to a similar graph with temperatures you would consider correct? Is it totally incorrect to say that since 2000, there has been no significant warming? How do those of us on the sidelines judge which graphs are right? Is there not some objective source everyone agrees upon?
For most folks, their Greatest Good is not saving the world.
It isn’t fixing world hunger; preventing the Big Comet; stamping out tobacco.
The average guy’s Greatest Good is living as well as possible, and possibly extending that opportunity of living well to a close circle of family and friends.
AGW alarmists behave psychologically the way conspiracists behave, and that’s why GIGOBusters and others so passionately defend every nitpick. AGW may be correct, or it may prove to be yet another over-hyped-but-sincere folly, but the average man simply does not care. To the Alarmist, this lack of concern is as significant a problem as is the lack of salvation for the masses to the Evangelist.
From an Alarmist perspective, it is as if there is a giant conspiracy to demean the Message: This world is heating up, it’s your fault and it’s going to Kill Us All.
Yet the average guy trudges along and wonders if he’ll be having spaghetti for dinner again.
The average guy does not care about AGW if the solution involves a diminution in his opportunity to live well now. Nor does he see iconic alarmists such as Al Gore living less well. The principle of the tragedy of the commons ensures that we will never collectively sacrifice for a non-immediate generalized benefit. AGW is markedly distinct from say, cleaning up our air pollution or fixing our sewage. The putative benefit is simply too far removed from Everyman’s personal life.
I am amused at the passion exhibited by Alarmists who simply cannot figure out why the average guy is not alarmed to the point of Action. For the Alarmist, the Message of AGW Salvation seems never to be as impactful as it should be, even when the IPCC is 95% confident the average man is at fault for crapping up our future.
Uh, you know, I do not feel very confident when you ignore the cites I make, it is over the
**
Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate** Quote.
And the way to judge the graphs it is simply the pedantic reason that they are based on science that was peer reviewed, most of the links to the science are in blue, unlike the cite with the misleading chart that it is just an opinion, as even the Physicists that is jumping to a field that he has no expertise with admits.
The average guy is telling us that there is reason to do something, it is the political leadership (virtually all Republican) that denies even the concern of the people.
GIGO, I went to that link but didn’t see a graph. I’m asking if you can link to a graph that is basically the same as the other one, but with more accurate data. Even if it does not contain the linear projections, just one that shows average global temperature over time would suffice.
Chief Pedant, your comment is quite insightful. I wonder if it, aside perhaps from slight quibbling over its tone, is one of the few things both sides could agree on? Maybe the full-blown deniers won’t go for it; but among those that think there is human-caused warming going on, but disagree sharply about what if anything to do about it, I suspect there might be a meeting of minds here. The main difference being whether you are describing an alarmingly tragic failing of human nature or more of an “ah well, c’est la vie”.
ETA: GIGO, those poll numbers don’t mean much without a signal of what kind of belt-tightening the respondents are willing to do now for a benefit that is promised to accrue decades from now to their descendants.
Actually there are 3 graphs, all referring to the 1990, 1995 and 2003 reports, what is very important is to look at the red line in all the graphs, once the temperature of 5 data sets is used one can see that the actual temperature is higher than from the cite Magiver used.
Actually it is not, if the nitpick had been about the ice loss I would be in agreement that IPCC got something wrong, showing that what the Chief said about the nitpicking to be wrong. Besides being wrong that the “average person” does not care, even his observation of why is based on ignoring that the costs are not as huge as the Chief and others want to make it if we act now.
And you say so here is even less of a signal against it, think about it.
I may add that there is a very good reason why contrarians do not want to talk much about the error on the loss of ice in the poles and glaciers, it is because it is much worse than predicted and it follows then that the ocean rise is also higher than expected in previous reports.
I do remember that the reason why that happened was because of the **conservative **nature of the IPCC, very little data about the acceleration of the ice loss was available on previous reports so they punted. They did report that the lower estimate of the loss of ice and the rise of the ocean was due to the lack of reliable or enough data from the filed. They did however add that the estimates should change once the actual rate of acceleration was better understood.
Once again, the point here is that one can see a lack of information from denier sources about this for a few reasons: that it does not fit the denier narrative that the IPCC is alarmist; that many scientists were correct that the ice loss was going to accelerate; and finally: the last thing deniers would report to their groupies is that the situation is worse than expected by the policy organization they are criticizing.