CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Nabber

Akrasia wrote: »

Global average temperatures have increased by 1c already. Way beyond natural variability and we know what is causing it

You say poor countries don’t care about climate change? That’s a load of nonsense. It’s like saying a poor pensioner doesn’t care about the hole in her roof and her broken window. It’s not that she doesn’t care, it’s that she can’t afford to do the repairs she needs to prevent more damage from accumulating until her house becomes uninhabitable
Wealthy nations need to make climate action a priority and support the global drive to Transition to carbon neutral economies, for our own sake as much as the benefit of the developing world

Never said the poor don’t care. If you reread my statement I said it’s something only wealthier can be concerned with.

As you like to use analogies.

AGW in poor countries. It’s like telling a starving man that he must save his money for his non existent kids future education.

Wanderer78

Nabber wrote: »

Politics needs to be removed from the science.
Big name preachers of AGW are buying seafront property
Flying around the globe, shaming others for driving their cars to work.

The predicted extremes are so varying that any change we make today can't be measured in the future.
If the predictions are as bad as they say, well there is nothing we can do about it, maybe go back to stone age technology?

Global warming is only something that peoples and countries of wealth can be concerned about. It requires that people in poverty remain in poverty so as not to increase their energy needs. Then the wealthier move to technology and energy inputs not accessible to the poor. it's a societal disaster pushed in a large part by socialists (go figure). It's all pinned on a prediction that warmer weather means the demise of humans, and that ice core interpretations have shown that climate varies only fraction's of degrees over millennia. It reads like a B movie on the Sci-Fi channel.

There are more concerning matters, like starvation and abject poverty that we need to fix first.

The folks who are are pushing for change do very little to act out what they preach, usually defaulting to "well the government need too..."
Those people should be giving up their modern luxuries, but they don't, they stand on their pedestal virtue signalling to everyone else.


https://www.fastcompany.com/90338232/climate-change-has-made-rich-countries-richer-and-poor-countries-poorer


https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/22/136009/climate-change-has-already-made-poor-countries-poorer-and-rich-countries-richer/


https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190502-how-global-warming-has-made-the-rich-richer



Even the overly BIASed and heavily moderated skepticalscience.com side step the question. Instead opting for the What's better for Humanity :rolleyes:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-poor-poverty.htm

Imagine that in heavily politicised issue, some people are gonna get richer and others poorer. :eek::eek:

removing politics from the science, is probably the most idiotic thing ive heard in relation to this topic, its important to realise why humanity created our political institutions! one of the biggest hurdles in regards action towards our environmental issues, has in fact being our political institutions, and their deeply embedded ideologies, in particular our current, most predominant form of capitalism, i.e. neoliberalism, and its associated economics school of thought, neoclassical theory. removing this debate from politics, essentially de-democratises, the whole debate, and the possibility of solving these issues by so, it would more than likely move the whole process towards alternative domains, in particular, more plutocratic ones. most humans, including myself, continually engage in activities that are harmful to our planet, its currently virtually impossible to do so, so in a way, most of us are hypocritical towards these issues in our overall actions.

yes, it is true, 'all models are wrong, but some are useful', us weather geeks truly should understand this one well by now, we truly dont know what will happen in the future, but if current predictions, from organisations such as the ipcc, do actually occur, human life will probably be in serious trouble in the not to distant future, this means your kids and grandkids futures are hanging in the balance here. its important to also realise, some elements of ipcc research, is currently being heavily criticised, some research showing, ipcc research is seriously under estimating future predictions, but the truth is, nobody truly knows for sure, but do we truly want to risk this!

all humans need to be concerned about this, and is doesnt necessarily mean we all have to down grade our living standards either, i personally believe we can continue improving our standards, globally, and continue working on improving our environmental situation, at the same time. we have figured out how to create vast amounts of wealth, and quickly, we just need to resolve our serious and growing, wealth distribution issues, and theres some very interesting ideas out there, in how we might be able to do that, but our political world, is currently stuck, and unwilling/unable to even consider these alternatives, but that might be changing now. im not sure where you re going with the use of the term 'socialists', as i suspect most humans have little or no knowledge of this ideology, nor interest in creating such a world, but of course i could be wrong. i personally agree with libertarian economist deirdre mccloskey, 'most humans would rather a capitalist society over a socialist one', a socialist society sounds fairly miserable to me, but of course, i could also be wrong with that as well. i think the argument truly should be capitalism v's capitalism, i.e. i believe in this moment in time, the solution to capitalisms problems, is in fact capitalism itself, even though this could be wrong, and future generations may discover a better approach.

we maybe able to help resolve these issues, 'There are more concerning matters, like starvation and abject poverty that we need to fix first', and our environmental issues, all at the same time, if we started tackling our growing wealth distribution issues.

our current form of capitalism has in fact being making developed countries wealthier, by extracting this wealth, in many ways, from developing nations, one of the main methods being 'debt peonage' etc, this has in fact being occurring for many decades, probably centuries now, i.e. long before our current environmental movements were even conceived.

again, our growing wealth inequality issues, is far more complex than just our growing environmental issues, but both are intertwined

Akrasia

Nabber says he wants to remove the politics from science but he doesn't refer to scientists or scientific papers when claiming that science is being influenced by politics.
"The science" speaks volumes about the reality of climate change, and while there is always some uncertainty about the future impacts of climate change due the huge numbers of variables involved, including our own political responses to either mitigate or ignore the dangers of climate change, there is overwhelming consensus that we need to act to limit our CO2 emissions if we want to reduce our risk of severe consequences

What Nabber really wants to do is to remove the science from politics, and again, this is a very silly attitude to take.
We have Donald Trump attempting to kill science by cutting the budgets of agencies he disagrees with. Cutting research budgets for scientists in case their findings might undermine the policies he wants to enact. Climate is not mentioned once in Trump's 2021 federal budget proposal while he wants to increase spending on his border wall and the military so he can put weapons in space.

Should politicians and citizens not base policies and support measures based on the best available evidence? Should voters not inform themselves and assess the manifesto of each party based on how realistic they are and whether they can back up their claims with reference to evidence and research?

Should politicians be permitted to just make up their own 'facts' and throw them out into the public to cause fear and panic about an invented threat, or to downplay the risks of a genuinely risky course of action...
Should politicians be encouraged to draw up long term development and infrastructure plans without ever checking with scientists to find out if this infrastructure will perform as expected the way it is intended over generations of operational activity.

By removing the science from politics, you open the door to pure ideological extremism, where idealogues can get themselves into power and enact measures aimed at furthering their own interests or ideological agenda even if there is very strong scientific evidence to say that their actions will have negative consequences. Without science and responsible impartial media reporting, political debates are just two sides making statements claiming that they are superior to their opponents in every way that can never be validated.

By removing the science from politics, you have people like Trump telling other people to drink bleach, not to wear masks, not to bother taking measures to prevent the spread of a pandemic because it will just disappear in April like magic, climate change deniers being appointed to head the EPA, using this role to prevent the funding of research into what might happen if we don't reduce our GHGs

Birdnuts

Akrasia wrote: »

Global average temperatures have increased by 1c already. Way beyond natural variability and we know what is causing it

Since when and are u putting it all down to AGW?? I suggest you do some research on the extreme rapid warming experienced in Greenland during recent interglacials.

Nabber

Nabber wrote: »

Politics needs to be removed from the science.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

removing politics from the science, is probably the most idiotic thing ive heard in relation to this topic, its important to realise why humanity created our political institutions! one of the biggest hurdles in regards action towards our environmental issues, has in fact being our political institutions, and their deeply embedded ideologies, in particular our current, most predominant form of capitalism, i.e. neoliberalism, and its associated economics school of thought, neoclassical theory. removing this debate from politics, essentially de-democratises, the whole debate, and the possibility of solving these issues by so, it would more than likely move the whole process towards alternative domains, in particular, more plutocratic ones. most humans, including myself, continually engage in activities that are harmful to our planet, its currently virtually impossible to do so, so in a way, most of us are hypocritical towards these issues in our overall actions.

yes, it is true, 'all models are wrong, but some are useful', us weather geeks truly should understand this one well by now, we truly dont know what will happen in the future, but if current predictions, from organisations such as the ipcc, do actually occur, human life will probably be in serious trouble in the not to distant future, this means your kids and grandkids futures are hanging in the balance here. its important to also realise, some elements of ipcc research, is currently being heavily criticised, some research showing, ipcc research is seriously under estimating future predictions, but the truth is, nobody truly knows for sure, but do we truly want to risk this!

all humans need to be concerned about this, and is doesnt necessarily mean we all have to down grade our living standards either, i personally believe we can continue improving our standards, globally, and continue working on improving our environmental situation, at the same time. we have figured out how to create vast amounts of wealth, and quickly, we just need to resolve our serious and growing, wealth distribution issues, and theres some very interesting ideas out there, in how we might be able to do that, but our political world, is currently stuck, and unwilling/unable to even consider these alternatives, but that might be changing now. im not sure where you re going with the use of the term 'socialists', as i suspect most humans have little or no knowledge of this ideology, nor interest in creating such a world, but of course i could be wrong. i personally agree with libertarian economist deirdre mccloskey, 'most humans would rather a capitalist society over a socialist one', a socialist society sounds fairly miserable to me, but of course, i could also be wrong with that as well. i think the argument truly should be capitalism v's capitalism, i.e. i believe in this moment in time, the solution to capitalisms problems, is in fact capitalism itself, even though this could be wrong, and future generations may discover a better approach.

we maybe able to help resolve these issues, 'There are more concerning matters, like starvation and abject poverty that we need to fix first', and our environmental issues, all at the same time, if we started tackling our growing wealth distribution issues.

our current form of capitalism has in fact being making developed countries wealthier, by extracting this wealth, in many ways, from developing nations, one of the main methods being 'debt peonage' etc, this has in fact being occurring for many decades, probably centuries now, i.e. long before our current environmental movements were even conceived.

again, our growing wealth inequality issues, is far more complex than just our growing environmental issues, but both are intertwined

Akrasia wrote: »

Nabber says he wants to remove the politics from science but he doesn't refer to scientists or scientific papers when claiming that science is being influenced by politics.
"The science" speaks volumes about the reality of climate change, and while there is always some uncertainty about the future impacts of climate change due the huge numbers of variables involved, including our own political responses to either mitigate or ignore the dangers of climate change, there is overwhelming consensus that we need to act to limit our CO2 emissions if we want to reduce our risk of severe consequences

What Nabber really wants to do is to remove the science from politics, and again, this is a very silly attitude to take.
We have Donald Trump attempting to kill science by cutting the budgets of agencies he disagrees with. Cutting research budgets for scientists in case their findings might undermine the policies he wants to enact. Climate is not mentioned once in Trump's 2021 federal budget proposal while he wants to increase spending on his border wall and the military so he can put weapons in space.

Should politicians and citizens not base policies and support measures based on the best available evidence? Should voters not inform themselves and assess the manifesto of each party based on how realistic they are and whether they can back up their claims with reference to evidence and research?

Should politicians be permitted to just make up their own 'facts' and throw them out into the public to cause fear and panic about an invented threat, or to downplay the risks of a genuinely risky course of action...
Should politicians be encouraged to draw up long term development and infrastructure plans without ever checking with scientists to find out if this infrastructure will perform as expected the way it is intended over generations of operational activity.

By removing the science from politics, you open the door to pure ideological extremism, where idealogues can get themselves into power and enact measures aimed at furthering their own interests or ideological agenda even if there is very strong scientific evidence to say that their actions will have negative consequences. Without science and responsible impartial media reporting, political debates are just two sides making statements claiming that they are superior to their opponents in every way that can never be validated.

By removing the science from politics, you have people like Trump telling other people to drink bleach, not to wear masks, not to bother taking measures to prevent the spread of a pandemic because it will just disappear in April like magic, climate change deniers being appointed to head the EPA, using this role to prevent the funding of research into what might happen if we don't reduce our GHGs

What a load of garbage

You know the difference between removing politics from science and removing science from politics?

Wanderer78

Nabber wrote: »

What a load of garbage

You know the difference between removing politics from science and removing science from politics?

intellectually stimulating, as always

oh please do explain?

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

using this role to prevent the funding of research into what might happen if we don't reduce our GHGs

If the 'science is settled', as we are constantly told it is, then the scientists who have it all settled don't need anymore funding. Job done.

M.T. Cranium

Oops, that was a bit too logical for this science, please head on over to astronomy where they do logic routinely.



I don't find a 1 C deg warming to be "outside the bounds of natural variability" at all, but as I've said several times, I do agree that is roughly the working figure, possibly some fraction between one third and two thirds of it is natural and the rest due to increased greenhouse gases. Note also some debate exists about whether the increase in greenhouse gases is all because of human activity (I think 90% of it is) or due to warming climates, a sort of mutual reinforcement feedback loop (see Venus for possible final results of that).

Anyway, nothing really changes my mind that our best course of action politically is to plan around nearly inevitable rises in sea level and some of the other touted predictions within climate change, although I tend to take some of them with a grain of salt, in particular the more intense storms part (some evidence that trends are blanding rather than going in that direction). Still, a bland warmth can have its unwanted consequences.

The strictly political analysis is probably this -- assuming we accept the logic of the AGW theory, what are the reasonable chances of actually cutting back carbon emissions to this net zero goal often mentioned, and over how many years? What are the predictable consequences of so doing, in economic terms? Some say, we must do this for the future of the planet. However, that's an overstatement. The human race could survive, more or less comfortably, on a planet with 10 metres higher sea levels. 30-40 metres would be genuinely catastrophic, but it would not lead to the extinction of humanity. (that latter figure assumes complete disappearance of Antarctic land ice)

A new "ice age" (better put, glacial maximum) would be a worse catastrophe than even the 30-40 metre sea level rise. According to Milankovitch's accepted theory, the time line on that is luckily more gradual than it was between the last two glacials. We may have 30k to 50k years to plan for the next big glacial advance. Some of the orbital variables are oscillating at their steadier levels and we don't really start much of a slide down to a full glacial for at least 15k years. So in a way, that makes my next point a bit weaker but I think it's worth making, if we don't load up on carbon now then cut back and maintain a healthy greenhouse, then what is plan B to prevent the onset of that glacial. Some will say, well that's so far off, who cares? But if it's logical to care about our grandchildren and great-grandchildren's future, then what about those distant generations. They might be quite pleased with us if we send on our carbon. The trick would be to stabilize the climate at the slow-Greenland-meltdown levels of greenhouse gases and keep researching the question of how much more (if any) would be needed to prevent future major glaciation.

My guess is that around 20k to 30k years from now, science will be so advanced that weather control might be feasible. From my own research, I'm pretty certain that a well-placed second satellite of the earth, or some number of them, might do the trick. They might only need to be asteroid-sized, hence a supply of them exists.

I think the best approach in general is to keep trying on all fronts, advance technology, reduce emissions, plan for mitigation strategies, look into major desalination and agricultural expansion projects in arid regions, and try to figure out non-climate-based methods of preserving land ice and removing surplus water from the oceans.

If we spent all the money that is now spent on the military (or lottery tickets or make-up etc etc) on engineering projects relevant to climate stabilization, then we would probably succeed. It's quite possible that a dam across the Bering Strait would have a positive impact (it could be removed 20,000 years from now if desirable too). There could be road and rail links from North America to Asia built into that. It's only about 30 miles wide, and there's a fairly large island in the middle. The impact of a dam there would be to prevent warmer water from the Pacific from flowing into the west arctic basin. It should counteract at least the sooty deposition aspects of climate change in terms of maintaining longer and more extensive ice cover. Whether it would have any knock-on effects on the eastern half of the arctic basin is difficult to say but I would imagine to some extent a colder climate in half the arctic would quite conceivably lead to a slightly cooler regime in the other half as well. Even if not, Greenland and glaciated Canadian arctic islands (Ellesmere, Axel Heiberg, Devon, parts of Baffin) might be cooled slightly -- and that's all we really need, we don't need to put the arctic into a total deep freeze to achieve the desired results of stabilization of current ice levels).

Nabber

Perhaps it’s better to expand carbon now to remove the poverty line. Nourish and educate the planet bring the sum of humanities collective brain power up. Perhaps within those 2 billion people we will find 5million geniuses needed to solve this problem.
Seems more feasible than zero carbon emissions.
Also it’s the most humane thing to do.


It removes The AGW agenda of sacrifice the many for the theory. Save the environment but maintain the economic status quo.

Nabber

Wanderer78 wrote: »

intellectually stimulating, as always

oh please do explain?

What do you want me to say?
Both posts I quoted are are essential Laid out as “good vs evil”. Which is how AGW has been built. Believe in it or burn in hell.

The Paris agreement has served to increase the divide between rich and poor countries.

People like yourself and Arkasia want to ignore the direct socio impact a theory has. Even as we look at Arkasia bring in Trump and COVID as often as possible, scientifically the best thing for humanity is to build herd immunity. Yet that is not how we are approaching the pandemic, because we don’t sacrifice our vulnerable in the community for the majority.

Politics should be removed from Science. Politics shouldn’t have any sway on findings or gerrymandering to what data is released.

Science shouldn’t dictate politics. The path of least resistance is not how a society that protects the weak operates.
As extreme, let’s euthanise all unproductive members of society who waste carbon? The science would see that as a step in the right direction.

Birdnuts

Some alarmist idiot from a New York media outlet was on Newstalk this morning claiming that "Hurricanes" are now more "powerfull" and "frequent" due to AGW. Didn't provide a shred of evidence for the statement but sadly thats the level we are at when it comes to the media hysteria and BS on the subject:(

Oneiric 3

Birdnuts wrote: »

Some alarmist idiot from a New York media outlet was on Newstalk this morning claiming that "Hurricanes" are now more "powerfull" and "frequent" due to AGW. Didn't provide a shred of evidence for the statement but sadly thats the level we are at when it comes to the media hysteria and BS on the subject:(

It's all part the ongoing 'Climate Apocalypse' don'tcha know?

https://www.axios.com/california-climate-apocalypse-5f33f30d-8af4-4bb6-9572-5135c0cf08f1.html

Gaoth Laidir

Birdnuts wrote: »

Some alarmist idiot from a New York media outlet was on Newstalk this morning claiming that "Hurricanes" are now more "powerfull" and "frequent" due to AGW. Didn't provide a shred of evidence for the statement but sadly thats the level we are at when it comes to the media hysteria and BS on the subject:(

So what you do there is a quick fact-check and plot the data. Remarkable how well the number of major hurricanes and total season ACE both track the AMO index, though ACE was down during parts of the last decade. But no, there is no need to know about these natural links. That science is so 20th century.

paleoperson

Can we all just agree the OP is a global warming denier troll who has no scientific credentials, expertise, arguments or solutions and move on.

Gaoth Laidir

paleoperson wrote: »

Can we all just agree the OP is a global warming denier troll who has no scientific credentials, expertise, arguments or solutions and move on.

No.

Birdnuts

paleoperson wrote: »

Can we all just agree the OP is a global warming denier troll who has no scientific credentials, expertise, arguments or solutions and move on.

Christ..........:rolleyes:

Akrasia

Nabber wrote: »

What a load of garbage

You know the difference between removing politics from science and removing science from politics?

“The science” is already apolitical

I don’t think I’ve ever read a credible climate science paper that mentions or promotes one political ideology over any other in a normative way.

There have been positivistic studies into attitudes towards the science that include demographic information about political attitudes of survey respondents but this is just part of a demographic analysis

The IPCC are a political organization but they don’t actually do the science, they just present the findings of published research and the political interference in the IPCC has been to understate the dangers rather than exaggerate them

M.T. Cranium

Apparently on that Bering Strait question, some propose to build a much longer dam further south (at the southern entrance to the Bering Strait), three hundred miles in extent, and that would insulate a larger surface area against the Pacific warmth, but I would think in economic terms the 37-mile barrier (which would include small segments of the two Diomede islands) would be more attainable. It sounds ferociously expensive but the seabed is not deep there.

Other types of engineering responses that might be feasible would be (as I've proposed earlier) seawater diversion into irrigation from desalination pools located near sea level. Mauretania is partly below sea level behind some coastal barrier dunes. It might not be that difficult to create large desalination pools in that region feeding the west Sahara with irrigation water (and the growing population that would result with drinking water). Whether we could remove enough water over time to make much difference to the potential arctic melt seems like a challenge but as with everything, the economics of scale come into play with this, if it's worth doing on a massive scale then an economic justification needs to be worked out.

That region of Africa unfortunately has severe political unrest tied to border disputes and Islamic terrorist activity. Some nations that stand to benefit from irrigation are not friendly neighbours. West Australia, Chile-Peru, and California on the other hand suffer from no such problems. So these mega-projects could perhaps go there first and when west Africa realizes how far behind they are falling with their bitter political rivalries, it might push them towards a better path.

I don't care that much what zealot-style AGW hardliners say about people like myself, I know that their plans cannot work and will lead to political unrest and possibly civil war in North America (not just in the U.S.A. either). Those are pretty big negatives and their attitude to free speech and free inquiry says a lot, and I think neutrals recognize this. I am not over on the full-on denial side of this argument and would probably be fairly unpopular among them too. They just want things to remain as they were in 1955 or 1975 and that's not going to happen either.

This may be a case of not allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. A perfect solution from the purist camp is so politically infeasible and so technologically unreachable, that trying to impose it might do a lot more harm than good. If that makes me a troll, then whatever.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

If the 'science is settled', as we are constantly told it is, then the scientists who have it all settled don't need anymore funding. Job done.

What’s with all the one sentence sound byte answers these days?

We know that Climate Change is real and mostly anthropogenic, that science is settled, there is still a lot of work to do to measure the impacts and project what is likely to change in all the regions of the world over varying timescales under varying response scenarios

Akrasia

Birdnuts wrote: »

Some alarmist idiot from a New York media outlet was on Newstalk this morning claiming that "Hurricanes" are now more "powerfull" and "frequent" due to AGW. Didn't provide a shred of evidence for the statement but sadly thats the level we are at when it comes to the media hysteria and BS on the subject:(

Radio interviews rarely cite sources no matter what the topic, but I presume the interviewee was referring to this study from May 2020
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/22/11975

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Radio interviews rarely cite sources no matter what the topic, but I presume the interviewee was referring to this study from May 2020
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/22/11975

Funny you should mention that, as the graph I posted above (which you didn't comment on, I see) show a perfect natural correlation with the AMO for that period (quoted in bold). Here it is again for you in case you missed it.

The global instrumental record of TC intensity, however, is known to be heterogeneous in both space and time and is generally unsuitable for global trend analysis. To address this, a homogenized data record based on satellite data was previously created for the period 1982–2009. The 28-y homogenized record exhibited increasing global TC intensity trends, but they were not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Based on observed trends in the thermodynamic mean state of the tropical environment during this period, however, it was argued that the 28-y period was likely close to, but shorter than, the time required for a statistically significant positive global TC intensity trend to appear. Here the homogenized global TC intensity record is extended to the 39-y period 1979–2017, and statistically significant (at the 95% confidence level) increases are identified. Increases and trends are found in the exceedance probability and proportion of major (Saffir−Simpson categories 3 to 5) TC intensities, which is consistent with expectations based on theoretical understanding and trends identified in numerical simulations in warming scenarios.

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

The IPCC are a political organization but they don’t actually do the science, they just present the findings of published research and the political interference in the IPCC has been to understate the dangers rather than exaggerate them

AKA cherrypickers/market researchers. Why are taxpayers funding this?

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

AKA cherrypickers/market researchers. Why are taxpayers funding this?

No not aka cherry-pickers or market researchers
Where did you get this idea from?

Birdnuts

Akrasia wrote: »

What’s with all the one sentence sound byte answers these days?

We know that Climate Change is real and mostly anthropogenic, that science is settled, there is still a lot of work to do to measure the impacts and project what is likely to change in all the regions of the world over varying timescales under varying response scenarios

Climate science has been dragged through the mud thanx to nonsense statements like that - which is why you get second rate churnalists like George Lee spouting nonsense on the subject every time we get a standard autumn gale:rolleyes:

Wanderer78

Akrasia wrote:

The IPCC are a political organization but they don’t actually do the science, they just present the findings of published research and the political interference in the IPCC has been to understate the dangers rather than exaggerate them

Unfortunately, it looks like the ipcc economic advisor's are largely neoclassical, nordhaus's work is currently being stripped apart by some hedrodox economists, showing how he maybe seriously underestimating the negative effects of climate change on the world economy

Nabber

Akrasia wrote: »

No not aka cherry-pickers or market researchers
Where did you get this idea from?

In laymans terms. Scientists provide the data. IPPC administrators cherry pick the data they want.
IPPC is not looking for the truth, just to reinforce the belief.


It's not a stretch to assume a political body and the MSM have not done this before. Not so long ago we were treated to pictures of missile silos, launch pads and chemical labs. Things that never existed

Wanderer78

Nabber wrote: »

In laymans terms. Scientists provide the data. IPPC administrators cherry pick the data they want.
IPPC is not looking for the truth, just to reinforce the belief.


It's not a stretch to assume a political body and the MSM have not done this before. Not so long ago we were treated to pictures of missile silos, launch pads and chemical labs. Things that never existed

jesus, yes, we are all susceptible to 'inherent biases', therefore also 'confirmation bias', but this doesnt necessarily mean theres a 'conspiracy' to spread misinformation!

Nabber

Wanderer78 wrote: »

jesus, yes, we are all susceptible to 'inherent biases', therefore also 'confirmation bias', but this doesnt necessarily mean theres a 'conspiracy' to spread misinformation!

True.
But misinformation from bot side is the typical Tactic.

Wanderer78

Nabber wrote: »

True.
But misinformation from bot side is the typical Tactic.

it could very well be, but there is a potential case of inherent bias on both sides, and some of that could be unintentional, i am becoming deeply alarmed by the current criticism of ipcc work, showing, they may in fact be significantly under estimating the effects of climate change, particularly in an economic sense

Oneiric 3

Danno wrote: »

AKA cherrypickers/market researchers. Why are taxpayers funding this?

Because it keeps them under State control. If you are funded by the State, then you are nothing more than an agent of it.