Irreversible climate damage is imminent

[bolophonic]

a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, especially for making a quick profit; swindle.

I didn't ask you.

 

[will33]

Because there are TWO assertions being represented as ONE.

1) QUALITATIVE - 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing the observed temperature increase by burning fossil fuels that results in higher concentrations of CO2. Many peer reviewed studies support this conclusion.

2) QUANTITATIVE - The authors of the IPCC report extensively cite many peer reviewed studies and then proceed to come up with some conclusions of their own based on assumptions that are less than scientifically sound. Specifically, they systematically bias their estimation of margins of error in factors in favor of greater warming. These error biases add up to produce an estimation of the Climate Sensitivity Equillibrium of around 3 C, when a significantly lower number would be a more tenable conclusion.

When environmental activists cite the 97% number along with the assertion that this is a thouroughly robust and reliable theory, it is often with the implicaiton that the IPCC report and its conclusions are included in this consensus. Number 1 is accepted science based on peer reviewed studies. Number 2 is speculation based on the opinions of UN policy makers.






If I were a cynical person, I would suppose that control over the the world's energy industry is a motivating factor. Mitigating the affects of global warming is a great excuse for governments to take over all energy production from the current private owners.

Yet there is reason to believe that many environmental activists simply believe that it's okay to exaggerate or distort the effects of global warming if that's what it takes to frighten a reluctant public into joining their cause. The end justifies the means. Unfortunately, the lack of honesty exhibited by many of the crisis mongers has caused the credibility of the enitire movement to take a hit. This includes the credibility of science in general. This really is a shame, because it didn't have to happen this way and it's very likely that the public will cease to give a crap about global warming because of the overhype that the issue has gotten.

Thanks for the explanation.

I was mostly wondering why people would go on and on about the scientific process and all this, then sort of shoot themselves in the foot by citing some report that has "less then scientific" conclusions, opinions, biased estimates, etc. when they could be citing the actual proper studies.

 

[Solarmist]

Because there are TWO assertions being represented as ONE.

1) QUALITATIVE - 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing the observed temperature increase by burning fossil fuels that results in higher concentrations of CO2. Many peer reviewed studies support this conclusion.

2) QUANTITATIVE - The authors of the IPCC report extensively cite many peer reviewed studies and then proceed to come up with some conclusions of their own based on assumptions that are less than scientifically sound. Specifically, they systematically bias their estimation of margins of error in factors in favor of greater warming. These error biases add up to produce an estimation of the Climate Sensitivity Equillibrium of around 3 C, when a significantly lower number would be a more tenable conclusion.

When environmental activists cite the 97% number along with the assertion that this is a thouroughly robust and reliable theory, it is often with the implicaiton that the IPCC report and its conclusions are included in this consensus. Number 1 is accepted science based on peer reviewed studies. Number 2 is speculation based on the opinions of UN policy makers.


If I were a cynical person, I would suppose that control over the the world's energy industry is a motivating factor. Mitigating the affects of global warming is a great excuse for governments to take over all energy production from the current private owners.

Yet there is reason to believe that many environmental activists simply believe that it's okay to exaggerate or distort the effects of global warming if that's what it takes to frighten a reluctant public into joining their cause. The end justifies the means. Unfortunately, the lack of honesty exhibited by many of the crisis mongers has caused the credibility of the enitire movement to take a hit. This includes the credibility of science in general. This really is a shame, because it didn't have to happen this way and it's very likely that the public will cease to give a crap about global warming because of the overhype that the issue has gotten.

Thanks for stepping in again with the real story hbarcat.

 

[Metalbasspro]

Hmm who to trust? Randoms on the internet, or peer-reviewed journal-published scientists who actually study the phenomenon?

Trust? Don't most of the scientist pedaling this climate change BS have some connection to the United Nations one way or another? Don't almost all of them rely on grant money for their research?

Money will taint anything. Are there any studies that have differing results that are not funded by the system?

Does anyone question authority anymore or follow the money?

 

[Unrepresented]

Thanks for the explanation.

I was mostly wondering why people would go on and on about the scientific process and all this, then sort of shoot themselves in the foot by citing some report that has "less then scientific" conclusions, opinions, biased estimates, etc. when they could be citing the actual proper studies.

Keep in mind that this is one person's take on the situation, not gospel.

Thanks for stepping in again with the real story hbarcat.

I wish I got complimented every time I offered an opinion.

Trust? Don't most of the scientist pedaling this climate change BS have some connection to the United Nations one way or another? Don't almost all of them rely on grant money for their research?

Money will taint anything. Are there any studies that have differing results that are not funded by the system?

Does anyone question authority anymore or follow the money?

Everything is funded by the system either directly or indirectly. There is no external. You just happen to align to some things the system sells you more than others.

 

[will33]

Keep in mind that this is one person's take on the situation, not gospel.

I wish I got complimented every time I offered an opinion.

Everything is funded by the system either directly or indirectly. There is no external. You just happen to align to some things the system sells you more than others.

If there are legitimate studys that show a change, and that change is at least in part related to higher CO2 levels, and we are responsible for at least some of that CO2 increase, why not just stick with that?

Why pad the data, or include unscientific opinions, speculation, etc. to make the change look worse than it is? That's where you leave good science behind, and you're into motive, money, power, control, etc.

He has a great point when saying they're doing science in general a disservice.

If we'r going to be all about the scientific method, then we have to be all about the scientific method, even if the result doesn't always fit our personal views, goals, desires, etc.

If they're going to honest about this, they'll just cite the legitimate studies, and leave all the opinion and speculation and "bending data" to suit their views out of it.

IPCC seems to be more a global political body rather than group of scientists.

 

[Tituscrow]

Keep in mind that this is one person's take on the situation, not gospel.

I wish I got complimented every time I offered an opinion.

Everything is funded by the system either directly or indirectly. There is no external. You just happen to align to some things the system sells you more than others.

Can I just point out that the last big Global Warming TBOT thread made it past 1000+ posts, without anything like the vitriol that this thread seems to be spawning.

But then there are whole bunch of folks posting here that didn't post there.

Oh, and I started that one, therefore I am cool :|

 

[duff beer]

Follow the money. Funding is provided to study global warming, not the lack of it.

Therefore, if any warming really is happening, it will only be "bad" warming.

For example: Longer growing seasons and increased crop variety in former cold climates is not considered good. Areas that receive to much rain are always projected to receive more rain, never less, and dry areas are always projected to get drier.

 

[will33]

Follow the money. Funding is provided to study global warming, not the lack of it.

Therefore, if any warming really is happening, it will only be "bad" warming.

For example: Longer growing seasons and increased crop variety in former cold climates is not considered good. Areas that receive to much rain are always projected to receive more rain, never less, and dry areas are always projected to get drier.

My concern is how all this is going to affect the already shrinking population of Bigfoots. Suburban sprawl has already chased them out of the majority of their habitat. If climate change makes it unfeasable for them to live in the very few remaining sanctuaries they have left, we may be in the process of exterminating one of the most intelligent and human-like species the world has known. If Bigfoot goes extinct, it's a sure sign we're next.

 

[bolophonic]

Trust? Don't most of the scientist pedaling this climate change BS have some connection to the United Nations one way or another? Don't almost all of them rely on grant money for their research?

Translation: "I am not a scientist, nor have I ever met a scientist."

Money will taint anything. Are there any studies that have differing results that are not funded by the system?

Does anyone question authority anymore or follow the money?

Translation: "I get my information from trustworthy sources -- grass-roots blogs reposting oil company propaganda from super PACs, lobbyists and think-tanks."

 

[vin*tone]

..Money will taint anything. Are there any studies that have differing results that are not funded by the system?

Does anyone question authority anymore or follow the money?

Yes. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. It was originally funded by many backers including the Koch brothers and was heartily endorsed by Anthony Watts.

It ended up endorsing the accepted position.

In any case - that whole argument makes no sense. A lot of these scientists are funded by governments who do NOT want them to make these findings. A lot of the crucial research was carried out under Geoge Bush's Republican govt. Are you saying that Bush's Republicans were "in on it"?

 

[GrumpiusMaximus]

Follow the money. Funding is provided to study global warming, not the lack of it.

Fundamental misconception.

Any decent study that is done will be written and peer-reviewed. If, during this process, it is discovered that the funding source is a pressure group or has a vested interest in the outcome of the results, the papers are usually not published in reputable journals. Non-disclosure of funding sources is also grounds for retraction of papers and blacklisting and (in some fields - especially medical) grounds to prevent you from legally practising.

If you've ever researched the peer review system, you'll know that it is a harsh, cold, merciless bitch. The idea is to rip your research to pieces as best possible and reveal the flaws. If you are funded by a particular group, you are held to exactly the same standards as anybody else and if your data is shown to be falsified or your conclusions biased, you will be blacklisted almost instantly and discredited as a researcher.

That's why it's rare to find studies published by pressure groups (of either ilk) in reputable journals.

Good scientific conclusions are made on the weight of evidence and evidence alone.

 

[Unrepresented]

If there are legitimate studys that show a change, and that change is at least in part related to higher CO2 levels, and we are responsible for at least some of that CO2 increase, why not just stick with that?

Why pad the data, or include unscientific opinions, speculation, etc. to make the change look worse than it is? That's where you leave good science behind, and you're into motive, money, power, control, etc.

He has a great point when saying they're doing science in general a disservice.

If we'r going to be all about the scientific method, then we have to be all about the scientific method, even if the result doesn't always fit our personal views, goals, desires, etc.

If they're going to honest about this, they'll just cite the legitimate studies, and leave all the opinion and speculation and "bending data" to suit their views out of it.

IPCC seems to be more a global political body rather than group of scientists.

You have the science side of things then you have implementation. Implementation doesn't have to read as a power grab unless you begin with a paranoia over the role of organization of the people (government). Climate change has been politicized because of the fear of greater government involvement, the cynicism that "justifies" that doubt in human influence is just a tool to that end.

Can I just point out that the last big Global Warming TBOT thread made it past 1000+ posts, without anything like the vitriol that this thread seems to be spawning.

But then there are whole bunch of folks posting here that didn't post there.

Oh, and I started that one, therefore I am cool :|

It's tough to be cool in a lukewarm world.

Follow the money. Funding is provided to study global warming, not the lack of it.

Therefore, if any warming really is happening, it will only be "bad" warming.

For example: Longer growing seasons and increased crop variety in former cold climates is not considered good. Areas that receive to much rain are always projected to receive more rain, never less, and dry areas are always projected to get drier.

Reality check:

If this ginormous international government conspiracy that goes deep enough to manipulate multiple scientific fields and thousands of academic bodies, why would they:

1) Not simply take what they want? They have enough evil genius to pull this off without having to backdoor it like you're suggesting.

2) Waste their time trying to limit your ability to pollute unchecked? Why not control something meaningful?

 

[-Asdfgh-]

There been no warming for the last 17 years.

The warmest year on record is 2010, the second is 2005. The third is 1998. All the others in the top ten are since 2000.

 

[GrumpiusMaximus]

The warmest year on record is 2010, the second is 2005. The third is 1998. All the others in the top ten are since 2000.

He's getting his figures from the 'Rumbustious Book of Science for Boys' published by Ladybird in 1923...

 

[Tituscrow]

He's getting his figures from the 'Rumbustious Book of Science for Boys' published by Ladybird in 1923...

Bonus points for use of the word 'rumbustious'.

 

[GrumpiusMaximus]

Bonus points for use of the word 'rumbustious'.

I did have to Google the spelling.

 

[Tituscrow]

I did have to Google the spelling.

I had to google the meaning.

 

[GrumpiusMaximus]

I had to google the meaning.

It's more esoteric than people having to look up the meaning of the word 'science', at least. That should be mandatory before posting in this thread...

 

[will33]

You have the science side of things then you have implementation. Implementation doesn't have to read as a power grab unless you begin with a paranoia over the role of organization of the people (government). Climate change has been politicized because of the fear of greater government involvement, the cynicism that "justifies" that doubt in human influence is just a tool to that end.

That all makes sense but what does it have to do with stretching the findings?

Why do people keep pointing to this IPCC report thing, like it's the be all-end all document? Why point to something speculative, not peer reviewed, etc. when they could point to, I don't know, some analysis of some ice-core samples or something that is basically hard, opinionless data. That stuff is all out there. Why not cite it rather than the opinions of some global political body? If anything, it would better bolster the case that we are affecting the climate.