Sad that you only accept the scientific community when you think they say something you like and blow them off the rest of the time (sort of like groggy using a certain country's press when he likes what they say and dismisses the when they don't).
Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??
- Thread starter AK-47
- Start date
Not quite. The support for the political agenda was based on computer model projections, not empirical evidence. The projections were spectacularly wrong (according to the University of Hamburg, 98 per cent of the models failed to predict the "pause").Sadly for your conspiracy theory, their political agenda is based on the evidence supporting CO2 as the major driver, not the other way around. The scientists discovered the problem and advocate because they need the world's help to fix it.
The politicization of what is supposed to be science has become a huge problem. The IPCC's credibility problems have been well documented (I'm sure you don't need me to provide another round of links).
That is compounded by the fact most climate researchers never challenge some of the demonstrably wrong things said by the likes of Gore, Suzuki and even Barack Obama (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/s...esidents-linking-drought-to-warming.html?_r=0).
If you've never seen it, you should watch this Australian program with David Suzuki on live TV. There are some incredibly awkward moments when Suzuki is challenged by researchers who actually know the facts. Suzuki knows the talking points but is surprisingly ill-informed (at one point, he says he has never heard of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3841115.htm).
The IPCC process is broken beyond repair. The argument that anyone who dares question the IPCC must be "anti-science" isn't working, and it isn't going to work.
I have previously proposed a fix, which I am happy to repeat.
If it is genuinely felt that there is a need for a body to gather research at an international level, then the IPCC should be abolished and replaced with a body that is committed to science and scientific evidence (wherever that evidence may lead).
Every effort should be made to try to keep that body free from biases or agendas. There should be no involvement from governments, environmental organizations, or anyone else who will taint the research process. Nor should there be efforts to try to silence or discourage research that doesn't suit desired outcomes.
The Holocaust was a historical fact, not a scientific premise.Just for fun, its time to analyze each of your pathetic arguments based on the 5 characteristics of scientific denialism...
That's #1, a conspiracy theory.Not quite. The support for the political agenda was based on computer model projections, not empirical evidence. The projections were spectacularly wrong (according to the University of Hamburg, 98 per cent of the models failed to predict the "pause").
Again the ridiculous accusation that 10,000 scientists are conspiring for some unknown motive.
And a little side order of misrepresentation, since we are still within the range of the predictions.
Fail.
Straw man argument.The Holocaust was a historical fact, not a scientific premise.
Another fail.
You may wish to take another look at the IPCC's predictions:That's #1, a conspiracy theory.
Again the ridiculous accusation that 10,000 scientists are conspiring for some unknown motive.
And a little side order of misrepresentation, since we are still within the range of the predictions.
Fail.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains3-2.html
As for the suggestion that the IPCC has "unknown motives," perhaps you might want to familiarize yourself with the IPCC's reports:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=61
Again you show how little you know about the scientific method. That's like saying a horse is an animal, not a house, two different thingsThe Holocaust was a historical fact, not a scientific premise.
That's pretty funny, coming from the guy who only learned on Friday that the IPCC believes global warming is primarily driven by man-made CO2 emissions:Again you show how little you know about the scientific method.
Two different situations. You can be the most important factor (more than any other single element) without being the primary driver (more than all the rest combined), make up your mind.
From 2007, 7 years ago. Since them they have increased they knowledge base a tad and have a much better grasp of the situation.You may wish to take another look at the IPCC's predictions:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains3-2.html
As for the suggestion that the IPCC has "unknown motives," perhaps you might want to familiarize yourself with the IPCC's reports:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=61
Perhaps you can summarize that 2nd long passage from the IPCC, just to make sure you actually read it. You shown many times in the past you don't read what you post, or at least don't understand it.
That's pretty funny, coming from the guy who only learned on Friday that the IPCC believes global warming is primarily driven by man-made CO2 emissions:
One more example of MF2 not understanding plain english, clearly not what I said yet he want us to believe he can understadn scientific reports and data.Quote Originally Posted by blackrock13 View Post
Two different situations. You can be the most important factor (more than any other single element) without being the primary driver (more than all the rest combined), make up your mind.
Given that their confidence in the computer model predictions went up, the claim that they have a "much better grasp of the situation" is highly debatable.From 2007, 7 years ago. Since them they have increased they knowledge base a tad and have a much better grasp of the situation.
In any event, the point of the post (which you apparently missed) was to reaffirm what the IPCC actually predicted. I don't see anything in the prediction that aligns with what actually occurred, and the IPCC itself reported in 2013 that there were "differences" (not that the results were within range).
Perhaps you can summarize that 2nd long passage from the IPCC, just to make sure you actually read it. You shown many times in the past you don't read what you post, or at least don't understand it.[/QUOTE]
I think you have me confused with Groggy.
In any event, I don't need to summarize it. Everything you need to know is in the second sentence of the first paragraph:
Apparently, the "unknown" agenda isn't so "unknown," after all.This literature views the climate problem as a component of a larger problem, namely the unsustainable lifestyles and patterns of production and consumption, and explores a broad range of options for moving the world towards a sustainable future.
Not true. I understood what you wrote. You didn't know what the IPCC has been arguing.One more example of MF2 not understanding plain english, clearly not what I said yet he want us to believe he can understadn scientific reports and data.
Fair enough. All I'm saying is perhaps you should stop trying to claim to be the definitive expert on the science.
Nor have I ever claimed that, but least I 'have done field work with others who are experts.Not true. I understood what you wrote. You didn't know what the IPCC has been arguing.
Fair enough. All I'm saying is perhaps you should stop trying to claim to be the definitive expert on the science.
Then again you decided not to give us a summary of the IPCC reference you offered. Looks like you didn't read it either.
You may wish to take another look at the IPCC's predictions:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains3-2.html
As for the suggestion that the IPCC has "unknown motives," perhaps you might want to familiarize yourself with the IPCC's reports:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=61
That's still conspiracy theory.
If you think they are all politically motivated then please list:
a) motives
b) how they all work together on the individual papers that make up the IPCC reports
c) the political goal they expect to achieve
d) any real evidence you have back this up
I think you have less evidence then the AIDS conspiracy groups, and that was nothing.
Good luck.
Idiot.
I think you have me confused with Groggy.
In any event, I don't need to summarize it. Everything you need to know is in the second sentence of the first paragraph:
Apparently, the "unknown" agenda isn't so "unknown," after all.
Ah, so you think that 10,000 scientists are working together to make us abandon modern living and return to the stone age?
Is that your latest conspiracy theory's motives?
Nice one.
Idiot.
That's still conspiracy theory.
If you think they are all politically motivated then please list:
a) motives
b) how they all work together on the individual papers that make up the IPCC reports
c) the political goal they expect to achieve
d) any real evidence you have back this up
a) and c) are the same, and have already been answered by the IPCC:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=61This literature views the climate problem as a component of a larger problem, namely the unsustainable lifestyles and patterns of production and consumption, and explores a broad range of options for moving the world towards a sustainable future.
b) is one of Groggy's time wasters, which would prove nothing and would ultimately be met with another response of "so what"? The IPCC publicly admits that governments are part of the approval process for IPCC reports: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/09/ipcc-report-author-data-openness
d) is well documented in press reports and interviews throughout the world. For example:
http://www.scidev.net/global/climate-change/feature/ipcc-rajendra-pachauri-climate-tech.htmlIt basically means that, in terms of human actions, we really have to do something about climate change. This means that we have to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases rather urgently.
At least I'm smart enough to read the posts I'm responding to, so that I don't end up praising a bunch of gibberish (which the source admits was gibberish) or losing a bet because I didn't read the agreed-upon terms.Nice one.
Idiot.
No, you can't just link to the report and think you've made your point when its been repeatedly shown that you aren't smart enough to understand it.a) and c) are the same, and have already been answered using the IPCC's report:
If you are going on with this ridiculous conspiracy claim you need to point to specific text.
I'll take it that you have no evidence that they worked together in this conspiracy theory, as suspected.b) is one of Groggy's time wasters, which would show nothing and would ultimately be met with a response of "so what"?
Here's where this whole argument falls apart.d) is well documented in press reports and interviews throughout the world. For example:
http://www.scidev.net/global/climate-change/feature/ipcc-rajendra-pachauri-climate-tech.html
They are doing exactly what you would hope your doctor would do if he found you were smoking and and lung problems.
He would suggest you stop smoking.
This is exactly what they are supposed to do:
Examine the climate to see if and why its changing. Now that they've identified human activity or anthropomorphic climate change and CO2 and other greenhouse gases as the primary cause of the climate change we are clearly experiencing today its their responsibility to say that their research shows that continuing to increase emissions of greenhouse gases is a really, really bad idea.
What do you think they are supposed to do after they've made this finding?
Say 'climate change is happening but it may be ok, oceans will rise, crops will fail, but new beach resorts will open in Alaska making things ok?
This is where your argument just looks so ridiculous.
a) and c) are the same, and have already been answered by the IPCC:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=61
b) is one of Groggy's time wasters, which would prove nothing and would ultimately be met with another response of "so what"? The IPCC publicly admits that governments are part of the approval process for IPCC reports: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/09/ipcc-report-author-data-openness
d) is well documented in press reports and interviews throughout the world. For example:
http://www.scidev.net/global/climate-change/feature/ipcc-rajendra-pachauri-climate-tech.html
Originally Posted by IPCC View Post
This literature views the climate problem as a component of a larger problem, namely the unsustainable lifestyles and patterns of production and consumption, and explores a broad range of options for moving the world towards a sustainable future.
Wow, shame on them to want to sustain or improve on an environmental and economic climate in which the human race will survive and possibly even thrive and one way to get here is to help sustain a heathy biosphere which will help in attaining a thriving world. As it it clear to almost everyone, the present course is not that way.
And you say you don't believe in conspiracy theories. Most rational people would think that if the vast majority of scientists see CO2 as a major factor, that's what the evidence supports but you think there is a conspiracy preventing dissent.The IPCC process is broken beyond repair. The argument that anyone who dares question the IPCC must be "anti-science" isn't working, and it isn't going to work.....
The more you post, the more you prove your scientific illiteracy.Not quite. The support for the political agenda was based on computer model projections, not empirical evidence. The projections were spectacularly wrong (according to the University of Hamburg, 98 per cent of the models failed to predict the "pause").
