by cantleave 153 Replies latest social current
http://www.businessinsider.com/meterologist-eric-holthaus-quits-air-travel-2013-9
The above serves as an excellent example of the sort of hysteria and fanaticism that underlies much of this climate discussion.
"Nothing else matters". "It's a zero sum game"
Let the implications of such comments fully sink in. No more burgers? No more airflights? Nothing has a greater priority?
Really?
metatron
thats his personal opinion metatron - you'll have noted he hasn't published a paper for peer review - just tweeted that he isn't flying anymore. Good luck to him.
You don't seem to be the kind of guy that would struggle differentiating between opinions and facts, so i'm not sure why you feel this adds anything to a thread on the IPCC report, which is evidence-based.
not exactly on topic, but, from one ex-JW to others, to those of you in the "this is really a big problem" camp....
How do you stay concerned about the issue without becoming terrified and paralyzed by it? Is climate change playing out into an apocalyptic scenario? Like, are we all gonna starve or die in massive hurricanes?
besty the graph only goes to 2010, I can't help you, look at It.
On scientific credentials, do yours outstrip Judith Curry who you disparage?
Since I am not a scientist and I can't evaluate the evidence independently I think it is reasonable for me to judge the IPCC on its past predictions, don't you think that's reasonable?
Which begs the question, since their predictions over the past 20 years have proved wrong, why should we be confident about their further predictions?
The global warming narrative that is rapidly losing ground. Don't die in a ditch for a failing theory. Maybe having been in the Watchtower is a bit too much like practice for adopting that defensive stance.
Fpo: the people who are going to starve and die are for the most part people in the third world.
@SBF
besty the graph only goes to 2010, I can't help you, look at It.
OK - try this:
The point is clear - 5 periods of claimed cooling = upward trend. Ever tried going down an up escalator, because that's what you are seeing here.
On scientific credentials, do yours outstrip Judith Curry who you disparage?
No. Thats why the only logical position is to accept the 97% consensus. (Same reason I accept 587 for the destruction of Jerusalem without being a neo-Babylonian history professor)
Since I am not a scientist and I can't evaluate the evidence independently I think it is reasonable for me to judge the IPCC on its past predictions, don't you think that's reasonable?
Yes that's reasonable. Except you haven't read every single IPCC report and formed your own conclusions - you are cutting and pasting from a non-scientific source. And where said economist says the IPCC were 'wrong', he doesn't say if they were wrong by being too conservative...its' difficult for the IPCC to get agreement from every government by being wildly pessimistic on outcomes. Some examples of the IPCC getting it wrong:
fossil fuel emissions worse than they thought, Artic ice melting faster than they thought, sea level rising faster than they thought
If that makes them wrong then so be it. Mother Nature doesn't care about IPCC predictions - most of the document summarizes our current understanding based on research to date. I'd be happy to consider a more comprehensive summary of every single prediction made by the IPCC and compare those predictions to outcomes.
Which begs the question, since their predictions over the past 20 years have proved wrong, why should we be confident about their further predictions
It begs the question if the premise is correct. You haven't convinced me that the IPCC are 'wrong'.
The global warming narrative that is rapidly losing ground.
Factually incorrect. And you need to explain a few things to me before you can even assert that.
1 - Why you adopt the 3% position when you admit to not being qualified.
2 - Whats happening with the blue bit of the graph relating to ocean heat content?
The graph looks a bit different with the three extra years added. The next ten years should be interesting.
The academic consensus can be wrong.
Are sea levels rising faster than they thought, or are you just making up that as an example?
The public is losing faith in climate change. In that sense it is losing ground.
Bizzy, pointing out that something was said by Rush Limbaugh is not the same thing as disproving it. Your constant snarky remarks are intellectualy lazy, boring and don't add to anybody knowldedge of anything. At least Besty and SBF are attempting to communicate something about their respective points of view.
The next ten years should be interested.
Are you struggling to comment on the known facts of the previous 40 years?
The academic consensus can be wrong.
Examples in the modern era of a 97% consensus being wrong after decades of study and research in a multitude of disciplines please.
Are sea levels rising faster than they thought, or are you just making up that as an example?
Satellite and tide-gauge measurements show that sea level rise is accelerating faster than expected. Rahmstorf, Foster, and Cazenave (2012) compares the historical sea level tide gauge data from Church and White (2011) and recent satellite altimetry sea level data (orange and red in Figure 4, respectively) to the 2001 and 2007 IPCC report model projection s (blue and green in Figure 4, respectively). The observational data in Figure 4 are aligned so that extending the satellite best-fit line (red) back to 1990 will match the IPCC projection s at that date, where the IPCC TAR model runs begin.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
The public is losing faith in climate change. In that sense it is losing ground.
argumentum ad populam? 60% of US Republicans are young earth creationists - whats your point?
@SBF
1 - Why you adopt the 3% position when you admit to not being qualified.
2 - Whats happening with the blue bit of the graph relating to ocean heat content?
