- Banned
- #1
How will humanity cope??
Science/Environment IPCC issues stark warning over global warming
- Thread starter Dont be a lemon
- Start date
- Tagged users None
How will humanity cope??
MrCharisma
Club Legend
This is where they let themselves down. The exaggerations. The IPCC just don't get it. The more you scare, the more people don't believe you.
Bit rich of you to talk about exaggeration when you posted an article of a "leak" from this latest report, claiming the IPCC were in "crises" and would "revise down" their claims of global warming impact. What happened to that? Of course you'll keep lapping up the BS from the Murdoch press like a thirsty dog at water.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
It is easy to raise issues but what is the point if you don't have solutions.
You are simply not relevant without solutions.
You are simply not relevant without solutions.
MrCharisma
Club Legend
Unless you're an expert in a relevant field, or personally propose, develop and implement laws, no one here has a solution. What you have is an armchair and an opinion. An opinion without expertise, experience or influence is worth very little. My expertise is in an irrelevant field, it would be ignorant of me to think I could come up with 'solutions' to complex problems in a field I have no expertise in - over a beer, in my spare time after work.
Unless you have have expertise and/or influence, all you can do is vote for the people who can implement laws; who can employ the relevant experts, and implement the best laws that work towards a solution.
To claim I am irrelvant because I have no solutions is fallacious. You're living in la-la land if you think you personally have a real solution to climate change. Must be the same place where the market comes up with the best solutions to environmental issues, which have no financial value
.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
Unless you're an expert in a relevant field, or personally propose, develop and implement laws, no one here has a solution. What you have is an armchair and an opinion. An opinion without expertise, experience or influence is worth very little. My expertise is in an irrelevant field, it would be ignorant of me to think I could come up with 'solutions' to complex problems in a field I have no expertise in - over a beer, in my spare time after work.
Unless you have have expertise and/or influence, all you can do is vote for the people who can implement laws; who can employ the relevant experts, and implement the best laws that work towards a solution.
To claim I am irrelvant because I have no solutions is fallacious. You're living in la-la land if you think you personally have a real solution to climate change. Must be the same place where the market comes up with the best solutions to environmental issues, which have no financial value
sorry mate, I wasn't referring to you as irrelevant.
I also agree, this board is akin to have a beer and sharing views.
I was referring to the IPCC
Disagree. Do I really need a phd to know that the Hockey Stick was nonsense? That Flannery was talking nonsense re climate, the printing money is not a good idea, that the Euro is doomed to failure etc.
I'll take the chap punting with his own cash over an academic any day of the week.
If experts were the only source of wisdom then let's have them make decisions for everyone as per Keynes - only problem with that is it has never worked.
Relax brother, the sky is still falling down!
So you explained to me recently.
CLARIFICATION: An earlier version of this story contained errors that have been corrected. The earlier version said the IPCC had dramatically revised down the rate of global warming over the past 60 years. In fact, the new rate of 0.12C every decade is almost the same as the IPCC's 2007 figure of 0.13C every decade over the 50 years to 2005. The report was based on a British media article that has since been corrected. The earlier version also said incorrectly that the IPCC conducted its own computer modelling. That error was made in the production process. - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...y-e6frg8y6-1226719672318#sthash.Q9dyM36D.dpuf
0.12 a decade x 10 =? So how do we get to 4c increase by 2100?
Ask Rupert. His mob made the clarification.
telsor
Hall of Famer
So...The story so far.
1) We've observed that the climate is changing.
2) We can show through secret models that this is leading to disaster and we need to take drastic action to fix this.
3) The models have failed to come close to real world data.
Now, my biggest problem is with the secret models...My view on science is that methods should be repeatable in order for their results to be accepted, and for this to happen, they need to be accessable.
The fact that the predictions made haven't come close to reality drastically weakens whatever credibility they might have had.
Science is about questioning things, and thus, being skeptical is a good thing.
1) We've observed that the climate is changing.
2) We can show through secret models that this is leading to disaster and we need to take drastic action to fix this.
3) The models have failed to come close to real world data.
Now, my biggest problem is with the secret models...My view on science is that methods should be repeatable in order for their results to be accepted, and for this to happen, they need to be accessable.
The fact that the predictions made haven't come close to reality drastically weakens whatever credibility they might have had.
Science is about questioning things, and thus, being skeptical is a good thing.
- Banned
- #15
Why preach about objectivity and critical thinking, when you present your subjective and selective interpretation of events as objective fact.
Do you really have that little self awareness?
telsor
Hall of Famer
OK, so rather than having a go at me, enlighten me. What facts did I have wrong?
If your only recourse is to go the man and not the ball, you're probably on the losing side.
- Banned
- #17
Firstly, not all climate models are "secret" (you are referring to the methodology I take it). Secondly, modeling is not the only form of evidence for human influenced climate change.
Next, define close, in specific statistical terms. There are numerous models, most within a certain margin, provide varying degrees of variability and accuracy. However, it is both inaccurate and overly simplistic to say none have come close.
Lastly, what sides? That you view the topic in terms of winning and losing and one of sides, demonstrates you fundamentally lack a critical and detached perspective. This isn't a sports game where you cheer your favorite team or ideological perspective on.
telsor
Hall of Famer
I'm referring to the programs themselves. If, as you say, they're not secret, I'd like to see them.
The models are the basis of the both the "This is what man has done so far" and "This is what will happen" cases...i.e. the core of the argument. If you want to show me proof of what man has done without any reference to models, I'd be very interested.
As for error margins, most models produce 2 sets of predictions...essentially 2 ranges..The expected and the broader range. All models I'm aware of from last century are outside the lower end of the broader range.
But again, no facts or references to counter the argument, but there is an attack on the person you disagree with. If you bother to reply again, but don't do better, I wont dignify it with a reply as I have no desire to sink to that level.
- Banned
- #19
The initial criticism is and was well deserved. You cannot pretend to be objective, but not use objective language, this is a very relevant observation.
You, have proffered no cited and referenced evidence for your claims.
Where is the evidence that all climate models are both secret and not even close to being accurate. These read like borrowed talking points, delivered with both certainty and in a completely non-neutral tone.
As for the programs, the very relevant GISTEMP software has been public for yonks. There are a number of public databases and algorithms which have been used or are based on the work done by major scientific bodies.
For something easier to use, for the lay person check out EDGM. http://edgcm.columbia.edu/
Clear climate code is an open source python reinterpretation of the GISTEMP software. A vast array of temp data is available to the wider public, there is no reason why individuals cannot model the data themselves. Heck, there are numerous research bodies like PCMI which provide publicly available modeling and associated software.
You make it sound like there is some vast, secret conspiracy, where modeling algorithms, procedures and protocols are shrouded in secrecy.
Most university departments which utilise or develop different algorithms, make them available to a whole host of staff, students and separate academic bodies.
Translation: I am losing this argument because I don't understand what you're talking about and so will leave this thread, only to revisit and lurk occasionally, muttering a quiet "that's right" when I see a viewpoint with which I agree.
- Banned
- #21
So a panel whose very existence is predicated on there being a problem...
...have reported that there is still a problem.
And I didn't even see it coming...
...have reported that there is still a problem.
And I didn't even see it coming...
So, what did you think of the actual analysis?
- Banned
- #23
Well having carefully analysed the underlying data of all 9,200 publications and meticulously cross-referenced the bona fides of all 259 authors, I feel qualified to say this:
This is where they let themselves down. The exaggerations. The IPCC just don't get it. The more you scare, the more people don't believe you.
I don't know. It seems to work well for NewsLtd.
It's just ridiculous... if you read the reports and stories they continue to say words like.... Likely, nearly, could, possible...etc Yet the science is clear and 95% of scientists agree. Well if it was clear, you would think 100% of scientists would agree.
This is where they let themselves down. The exaggerations. The IPCC just don't get it. The more you scare, the more people don't believe you.
What we are seeing is more sensationalism because they are worried the money is about to dry up. They keep showing predicted stats, this time it's 2046-65 (1.4-2.6C degree rise) and 2081-2100 (2.6-4.8C degree rise) so between 2065 & 2081 there will be no rise
and when you look at the last 60 years, there has been a significantly lower rise in temperatures. The big rises are always going to happen 30 plus years ahead, between 1 and 2 generations away I also love this part "Natural variability was cited as one of the reasons for warming being less pronounced in the last 15 years, and the role of the oceans in absorbing heat, which is still poorly understood." So much for a clear science
Similar threads
- Poll
