• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Near certainty' about AGW.

Threegoofs

In mourning for Turtledude
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
59,749
Reaction score
24,807
Location
We had a bad fire in 1871
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Funny. You read on these threads by the local resident fake scientists on how more and more scientists are dissenting from AGW theory. You read how therre is no consensus despite all the studies and common sense telling us all otherwise.

Well, a draft of the IPCC AR5 is out, and the certainty than AGW is real is actually RISING- 95% confidence vs 90%.

Funny how hard the deniers have to fight reality to defend their position

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/2...driving-climate-change-panel-finds.html?hpw=&
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Funny. You read on these threads by the local resident fake scientists on how more and more scientists are dissenting from AGW theory. You read how therre is no consensus despite all the studies and common sense telling us all otherwise.

Well, a draft of the IPCC AR5 is out, and the certainty than AGW is real is actually RISING- 95% confidence vs 90%.

Funny how hard the deniers have to fight reality to defend their position

Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming - NYTimes.com

BC the NYTimes is a non-biased reliable source..... :roll:
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
38,834
Reaction score
13,406
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Funny. You read on these threads by the local resident fake scientists on how more and more scientists are dissenting from AGW theory. You read how therre is no consensus despite all the studies and common sense telling us all otherwise.

Well, a draft of the IPCC AR5 is out, and the certainty than AGW is real is actually RISING- 95% confidence vs 90%.

Funny how hard the deniers have to fight reality to defend their position

Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming - NYTimes.com
Do you think the IPCC has people on staff who have a vested interest
in keeping the alarm bells ringing, weather there is a crises or not?
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
What would be the odds of them saying, " ops, sorry folks we made a mistake,
we don't need our jobs any longer."
 

Threegoofs

In mourning for Turtledude
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
59,749
Reaction score
24,807
Location
We had a bad fire in 1871
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
BC the NYTimes is a non-biased reliable source..... :roll:

You really don't get the difference between primary and secondary sources of information, do you?

That might explain a whole lot of your other posts.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Funny. You read on these threads by the local resident fake scientists on how more and more scientists are dissenting from AGW theory. You read how therre is no consensus despite all the studies and common sense telling us all otherwise.

Well, a draft of the IPCC AR5 is out, and the certainty than AGW is real is actually RISING- 95% confidence vs 90%.

Funny how hard the deniers have to fight reality to defend their position

Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming - NYTimes.com

Personally I think it highly probable the world ist warming. Also humanity is part of the action. Having checked a number of the statistics I am very much unsure, however, how much of the warming is anthropogenic. Also I find it somewhat daring to argue the point using data from an institution that lives and dies with AGW. If a group of people formal or informal live better from story 1 than they would from story 2, do not be surprised if they tell story 1. Don't trust them.

I also checked into the economics of change. Here again it apears there will be some. It is hard to say if it will be good or bad for me living here or for you living there. We just do not know. We do know that exchanging our present power supply for presently available technologies would be staggeringly expensive. I am watching what is happening in Germany and it is what I had expected. The good thing is, however, that other countries will be able to avoid the mistakes and inefficient technologies that are endemic to the travers here.
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
16,738
Reaction score
5,785
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010,” the draft report says. “There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century.”

Please note the bolded areas. Since The warming between 1895 and 1946 iwas nearly identical to the warming between 1957-2008, what casued the warming between 1895-1946??
 

Threegoofs

In mourning for Turtledude
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
59,749
Reaction score
24,807
Location
We had a bad fire in 1871
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010,” the draft report says. “There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century.”

Please note the bolded areas. Since The warming between 1895 and 1946 iwas nearly identical to the warming between 1957-2008, what casued the warming between 1895-1946??

Most likely CO2 contributed. But given that 1950 is generally used as the 'baseline' year for temperature anomalies, the passage is referring to warming after that base point.


It's not a 'gotcha' statement, no matter how badly you want it to be.
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
16,738
Reaction score
5,785
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
So global warming has flatlined for over 10 years while carbon emissions have increased. Yet they are MORE confident in the human cause? Doesn't pass the smell test. Sounds like politics is ruling the day rather than science.
Seems like the warmists at the IPCC are just getting frustrated that they can't get anybody to pay attention to them.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
94,067
Reaction score
46,553
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do you think the IPCC has people on staff who have a vested interest
in keeping the alarm bells ringing, weather there is a crises or not?
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
What would be the odds of them saying, " ops, sorry folks we made a mistake,
we don't need our jobs any longer."

Um, even if AGW were disproven climate science is an important field and climate does continue to change, with major impacts on humanity.

But I guess it's just easier to handwave scientific evidence with conspiracy theories than it is to actually disprove it.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
38,834
Reaction score
13,406
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Um, even if AGW were disproven climate science is an important field and climate does continue to change, with major impacts on humanity.

But I guess it's just easier to handwave scientific evidence with conspiracy theories than it is to actually disprove it.
While almost all efforts to extend human knowledge are useful,
I feel our monies would be better spent adapting technology to our new reality.
I am a skeptic, I actually read the science papers.
One of the issues currently is the divergent data.
Co2 continues to rise, while the temperatures appear to have flattened out.
The further they get apart, the less connection they appear to have.
It is very difficult to disprove the connection implied in AGW,
as the connection has not been defined in a Scientifically testable way.
BTW, A conspiracy in science would be almost impossible, too much competition!
The problem as I see it is a contamination of the money source.
nsf.gov - Funding - Climate and Large-Scale Dynamics - US National Science Foundation (NSF)
Imagine trying to write a proposal for the above grant, and implying you don't
think the IPCC is on the right track.
The University I worked for had a graduate class called "Research Methods"
I audited the class, because research methodology is an area of interest to me.
It turned out the class was about gathering information and tuning
the RFP wording to improve your odds of winning the grant.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,408
Reaction score
14,232
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
So global warming has flatlined for over 10 years while carbon emissions have increased. Yet they are MORE confident in the human cause?
Yep.

That's kind of what happens when you are educated in the relevant subjects, and study the actual evidence.


Sounds like politics is ruling the day rather than science.
Sounds like you're looking for an excuse to ignore the evidence.
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
16,738
Reaction score
5,785
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
While almost all efforts to extend human knowledge are useful,
I feel our monies would be better spent adapting technology to our new reality.
I am a skeptic, I actually read the science papers.
One of the issues currently is the divergent data.
Co2 continues to rise, while the temperatures appear to have flattened out.
The further they get apart, the less connection they appear to have.
It is very difficult to disprove the connection implied in AGW,
as the connection has not been defined in a Scientifically testable way.
BTW, A conspiracy in science would be almost impossible, too much competition!
The problem as I see it is a contamination of the money source.
nsf.gov - Funding - Climate and Large-Scale Dynamics - US National Science Foundation (NSF)
Imagine trying to write a proposal for the above grant, and implying you don't
think the IPCC is on the right track.
The University I worked for had a graduate class called "Research Methods"
I audited the class, because research methodology is an area of interest to me.
It turned out the class was about gathering information and tuning
the RFP wording to improve your odds of winning the grant.

YEs. Pecisely. Exactly.

It's not any kind of conspiracy. It's too many like- minded ( poltical ideology) folks who have agendas that compromise good science.
Couple that with the fact that too many scientists have made a name for themselves promoting AGW theory. Do you think Gavin Schmidt or Michael Mann or Kevein Trnberth are ever going to say " Gee we were wrong" . Not gonna happen. They are right now furiously trying to come up explanations for the inconvenient fact that global warming has stopped.There is no chance that theory can be wrong.
 

FederalRepublic

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
2,942
Reaction score
711
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Funny. You read on these threads by the local resident fake scientists on how more and more scientists are dissenting from AGW theory. You read how therre is no consensus despite all the studies and common sense telling us all otherwise.

Well, a draft of the IPCC AR5 is out, and the certainty than AGW is real is actually RISING- 95% confidence vs 90%.

Funny how hard the deniers have to fight reality to defend their position

Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming - NYTimes.com

If I were a snake oil salesman and someone questioned my wares, I would also claim to be more certain than ever.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,408
Reaction score
14,232
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
It's not any kind of conspiracy. It's too many like- minded ( poltical ideology) folks who have agendas that compromise good science.
And what is this claim based on, exactly?

Did you examine the roster of scientists on the panel? Where they studied? Where they work? No. You are looking (barely) at the conclusion, and hunting for reasons to reject it.


Couple that with the fact that too many scientists have made a name for themselves promoting AGW theory. Do you think Gavin Schmidt or Michael Mann or Kevein Trnberth are ever going to say " Gee we were wrong" .
Who?

Very few people have made a "name" for themselves by going along with 95% of their colleagues.


They are right now furiously trying to come up explanations for the inconvenient fact that global warming has stopped.There is no chance that theory can be wrong.
1) 2000 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record.
2) 2012 was in the top 10 warmest years on record.
3) July was the 341st month in a row that was above the 20th century average. That's 28 years in a row of above-average temperatures.
4) What has not increased (nor decreased...) is surface temperatures. Ocean temperatures have continued to increase.

No one is "desperate" to explain a short-term lull. They're desperate to figure out how to stop humans from baking the planet.
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
16,738
Reaction score
5,785
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
And what is this claim based on, exactly?

Did you examine the roster of scientists on the panel? Where they studied? Where they work? No. You are looking (barely) at the conclusion, and hunting for reasons to reject it.
.

.......and you accept it. Without question.
Stalemate.
Well not really. I'd say I'm way more reality based n questioning the conclusions of the IPCC
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
16,738
Reaction score
5,785
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Originally Posted by KLATTU
It's not any kind of conspiracy. It's too many like- minded ( poltical ideology) folks who have agendas that compromise good science.

And what is this claim based on, exactly?

.

“On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but& which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

-Stephen Schneider.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,408
Reaction score
14,232
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
“On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method....
Right. So when I ask if you've reviewed the CV of anyone on the panel, the answer is "no." As I expected.

Oh, and that quote? Schneider was criticizing soundbites, not the actual practice of science.


What I was telling the Discover interviewer, of course, was my disdain for a soundbite communications process that imposes the double ethical bind on all who venture into the popular media. To twist my openly stated and serious objections to the soundbite process into some kind of advocacy of exaggeration is a clear distortion. Moreover, not only do I disapprove of the “ends justify the means” philosophy of which I am accused, but, in fact have actively campaigned against it in myriad speeches and writings. Instead, I repeatedly advocate that scientists explicitly warn their audiences that “what to do” is a value choice as opposed to “what can happen” and “what are the odds,” which are scientific issues (e.g. p. 213 of Ref. 3). I also urge that scientists, when they offer probabilities, work hard to distinguish which are objective and which are subjective, as well as what is the scientific basis for any probability offered.

For such reasons I was honored to receive, in 1991, the AAAS/Westinghouse Award for the Public Understanding of Science. If the readers of APS News are confused by all this rancor and want a fair and balanced treatment of environmental scientific and policy debates, they can turn to the several National Research Council or IPCC assessments, in which words like “any,” “all,” “every,” and “entirely” are scarce, and citations are quoted or paraphrased in their proper context.


....and you accept it. Without question.
I also accept that water is composed of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom, despite not having physically examined every single water molecule in existence.

I also accept that human beings landed on the moon, despite the fact that strictly speaking, I will never be able to gather direct evidence of those missions.

I also accept that vaccines do not cause autism, that cigarettes are carcinogenic, that potatoes are indigenous to the Andes, and that stretching before exercise is not beneficial.

The reason I accept such things (including AGW) without spending decades poring over and/or replicating the relevant experiments is because the evidence ranges from excellent to overwhelming. Scientists are also repeatedly testing each other's data, looking for flaws and alternate theories.

Does this mean that science today is absolutely perfect? Of course not. Does it mean that it's reasonable to believe AGW, until contrary evidence is produced? Yes.

Can you question the IPCC? Sure. Are you doing that, on the basis of a single shred of scientific data? Obviously not. What you're doing is rejecting it out of hand, because you reject the conclusion before it was even produced. That's not criticism; that's denial.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
94,067
Reaction score
46,553
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010,” the draft report says. “There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century.”

Please note the bolded areas. Since The warming between 1895 and 1946 iwas nearly identical to the warming between 1957-2008, what casued the warming between 1895-1946??

Before then it was more solar output.

Solar variation is also the main reason temperatures flattened recently. Co2 rose, sun dimmed, net result was mostly no change in temp.
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
16,738
Reaction score
5,785
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oh, and that quote? Schneider was criticizing soundbites, not the actual practice of science.

nt].

Bullshiite. In his first statement he was honestly pointing out the state of the state climate science.( which unfortunately is still going on)

In his second statement he's clearly backtracking.
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
16,738
Reaction score
5,785
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,408
Reaction score
14,232
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Bullshiite. In his first statement he was honestly pointing out the state of the state climate science.
Nope... as with Climategate, a handful of phrases were taken out of context, and distorted.

Again, all we see from deniers is cherry-picking and willful distortions, rather than actual science. Quelle surprise.
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
16,738
Reaction score
5,785
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nope... as with Climategate, a handful of phrases were taken out of context, and distorted.

Again, all we see from deniers is cherry-picking and willful distortions, rather than actual science. Quelle surprise.

LOL. YEah ok. You forget to add it was investigated by indepenedent panels. ( laff)

Willfull disortions--you mean like Mike's Nature trick?

<brilliantly decribed here>
Mike’s Nature Trick | Debunk House

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,981
Reaction score
33,900
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So global warming has flatlined for over 10 years

Close.

Actually, it is the spurious arguments of the non scientists who like to write blogs and spew hot air over the radio waves that have flatlined.

The paddles are brought up now and again to try to revive them, but the doctor has already pronounced the time of death, the priest has already given the last rights, and the body is starting to smell. Time to bury it.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
94,067
Reaction score
46,553
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
LOL. YEah ok. You forget to add it was investigated by indepenedent panels. ( laff)

Willfull disortions--you mean like Mike's Nature trick?

<brilliantly decribed here>
Mike’s Nature Trick | Debunk House

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"

The late 20th century tree ring data is known to have problems. The instrumental record is better.

This so-called trick, incidentally, was discussed in the paper he published. The reasons for omitting that data set were explained. Tat you failed to read it is your problem.
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
16,738
Reaction score
5,785
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The late 20th century tree ring data is known to have problems. The instrumental record is better.

.

Oh-that's all there is to it? ......Whew talk about cherry picking and misleading.

The whole hypothesis commonly known as AGW hinges in temperature reconstruction for the past. Temperature reconstruction for periods beyond the temperature record rely on proxy data. In order to at try to validate proxy data, they had to compare the proxy data to the temperature record. It didn't match up.If they don't match up in th epresent , there is almost no chance they can be relied on for the past.
 
Top Bottom