Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Climate Change: The Megathread - Read Post #1 before posting

1235718

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Birth rates do decrease with prosperity; this is not the preserve of Dr Indur Goklany; others including WHO observe this is the case; these two links explain why:
    http://www.globalissues.org/article/206/poverty-and-population-growth-lessons-from-our-own-past
    http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn126manupured

    No energy source is finite, it's physics, even taking energy out of wind depletes the wind.
    Wind turbines can also increase local surface temperatures:
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/tx-wind-farm.html

    I think you missed the point I was trying to make.

    Birth rates to decrease with prosperity, but there is no indication that the vast majority of the population are ever going to achieve said "prosperity" if anything, the wealth gap will continue to widen as it has been doing.

    I am aware of the lack of an infinite power source, but that being said, there are energy systems that are renewed naturally, solar being the most obvious one, hydro-electric (being renewed by precipitation on high ground) tidal and as you mentioned, wind.

    No single one of these is going to be enough to fulfill the energy requirements globally, but a combination would certainly reduce our CO2 output.

    All of these energy sources have some strengths and weaknesses, but there is no reason why exposure to the weaknesses cannot be minimized and the strengths exploited to take a step in the direction of a long-term sustainable power supply.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Just to preempt the predictible, this is not to turn into a discussion on the pros and cons of renewables.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    Okay then, is discussion of CO2 sources allowed ?;)

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0204/breaking49.html


    :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,087 ✭✭✭Duiske


    Macha wrote: »
    Do you have a link? Because this report of the survey states that it was 489 individuals:

    http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

    Appears to be two different survey's, though they both highlight 97% agreement on temperature increase. Makes you wonder though, who are the 3% of "scientists" who believe temperatures have not risen ?.

    Can't access my own PC at the moment, but will put up a summary pdf tomorrow. I have a link to a copy of the study, but I'm unsure about posting it because as far as I can tell from the official link, the study (Doran/Zimmermann) is behind a paywall.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Yeah be careful about posting stuff behind a paywall..


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    Duiske wrote: »
    Appears to be two different survey's, though they both highlight 97% agreement on temperature increase. Makes you wonder though, who are the 3% of "scientists" who believe temperatures have not risen ?.

    Can't access my own PC at the moment, but will put up a summary pdf tomorrow. I have a link to a copy of the study, but I'm unsure about posting it because as far as I can tell from the official link, the study (Doran/Zimmermann) is behind a paywall.
    If Duiske is accurately reporting what questions the survey consisted of, then it really does not matter what the result was. It was so obviously designed to produce a predefined outcome that it has no relevance in the debate at all.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    If Duiske is accurately reporting what questions the survey consisted of, then it really does not matter what the result was. It was so obviously designed to produce a predefined outcome that it has no relevance in the debate at all.
    There were two different surveys. If you choose to believe him/her about the other one, go right ahead but that's not a very robust questioning methodology.

    I don't think I've changed my signature since I joined Boards 8 years ago..


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭SiegfriedsMum


    djpbarry wrote: »
    With any degree of accuracy? I disagree.

    Then I look forward to you telling us all what the temperature will be on, for example, February 14th at midday, and then we'll see after the event how accurate your prediction is.

    Then,as for every science experiment, we'll repeat the same experiment for Feb 21st, Feb 28 and every week for, say 13 weeks, and then assess the results and see how accurate the 13 predictions a week in advance are.

    Then, if you have been accurate to within, say 1°C, we can applaud your predictions, and hope the results are replicable.

    Or would you rather set your own goals and tell us the parameters you'd prefer?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Then, if you have been accurate to within, say 1°C...
    Hang on there now - you said that temperatures could not be predicted with any degree of accuracy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,087 ✭✭✭Duiske


    Macha wrote: »
    Do you have a link? Because this report of the survey states that it was 489 individuals:

    http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

    Link to summary of the Doran survey.

    http://www.wright.edu/~guy.vandegrift/climateblog/s06/012009_Doran.pdf


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Duiske wrote: »
    Appears to be two different survey's, though they both highlight 97% agreement on temperature increase. Makes you wonder though, who are the 3% of "scientists" who believe temperatures have not risen ?.

    Can't access my own PC at the moment, but will put up a summary pdf tomorrow. I have a link to a copy of the study, but I'm unsure about posting it because as far as I can tell from the official link, the study (Doran/Zimmermann) is behind a paywall.

    I found this piece from UIC, University of Illinois at Chicago re the the Doran/Zimmerman study: the UIC is where Doran and Zimmerman hung out at the time of the survey.
    http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
    "In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total).

    It's received a lot of criticism, just three examples here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
    http://www.fcpp.org/blog/climate-scientists-consensus-based-on-a-myth/
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

    Apparently the AGU, American Geophysical Union has a position statement on climate Change:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/the_american_geophysical_union_and_climate_hysteria.html


    Re Macha's link,
    The survey was a gallup survey conducted by Harris@interactive for Stats.
    Stats say "A detailed description of the study’s methodology as well as that of the earlier Gallup survey is available on request."; until we have sight of this we've no idea what this survey is actually showing - can you help Macha.

    However as Duiske has indirectly pointed out, why isn't the following 100% -
    "Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century." - this isn't disputed (survey done in 2007).

    Interstingly the survey found that:
    "Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” "
    and
    "Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science."
    and
    "However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years. "


  • Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Duiske wrote: »

    Same one I found! Sorry I was busy posting when you must have posted this - any way the 77 scientists are there.

    Be good if Macha can get the methodology etc for the survey in the link he provided although it doesn't say that "97% of climate experts believe humans are causing climate change"


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    The latest IPCC report says: “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.“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.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/science/earth/extremely-likely-that-human-activity-is-driving-climate-change-panel-finds.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0

    The trend seems to be towards more and more certainty about man-made climate change.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    Macha wrote: »
    The latest IPCC report says: “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.“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.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/science/earth/extremely-likely-that-human-activity-is-driving-climate-change-panel-finds.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0

    The trend seems to be towards more and more certainty about man-made climate change.
    The IPCC report has not been published or even finalised yet. I doubt if they would use terms such as "more than half", or "high confidence", (very unscientific). But lets wait and see what the final report says.

    I think the IPCC or any other scientific body should be very wary of making any specific predictions which can turn out to be demonstrably untrue.

    For example, in 2007 a prediction* made by a Professor Wieslaw Maslowski of the US Institute of Oceanology, that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013, has turned out to be complete hogwash. This prediction was widely cited and referred to in the 2007 IPCC report.

    When you make predictions and they prove to be false your credibility is lost. This is particularly true if the prediction is supposed to have a scientific basis. I expect this IPCC report will be a bit more vague and hedged with enough ifs and buts to enable them to explain away any non-fulfilled prophesies in the future. In short, it will be more a political than a scientific document.

    * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    The IPCC report has not been published or even finalised yet. I doubt if they would use terms such as "more than half", or "high confidence", (very unscientific).
    Scientists use such language all the time, but there is usually a measure of statistical significance associated with such terms. Previous IPCC reports have provided explanations of what constitutes "high confidence", "very likely", etc.
    Roger_007 wrote: »
    I think the IPCC or any other scientific body should be very wary of making any specific predictions which can turn out to be demonstrably untrue.

    For example, in 2007 a prediction* made by a Professor Wieslaw Maslowski of the US Institute of Oceanology, that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013, has turned out to be complete hogwash. This prediction was widely cited and referred to in the 2007 IPCC report.
    If every scientist stopped publishing their work in case it was subsequently found to be incorrect, science would grind to a halt.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Scientists use such language all the time, but there is usually a measure of statistical significance associated with such terms. Previous IPCC reports have provided explanations of what constitutes "high confidence", "very likely", etc.
    If every scientist stopped publishing their work in case it was subsequently found to be incorrect, science would grind to a halt.
    Any person who calls themselves a scientist should not publish work on subjects where there is uncertainty without precisely quantifying that uncertainty and that it may not be correct at all because of that uncertainty. Even if there is a 90% probability that something will occur then there is a 10% probability that it will not occur.
    The last IPCC report, (Fourth Assessment) concluded that sea levels would 'probably' rise by between 18cm and 59cm by the year 2100. There two problems with that conclusion:
    1. By expressing it as a probability suggests that it may not occur at all.
    2. By having a huge difference between the lower and higher estimate means that there is little likelihood that that the process of arriving at either figure is correct.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    The last IPCC report, (Fourth Assessment) concluded that sea levels would 'probably' rise by between 18cm and 59cm by the year 2100. There two problems with that conclusion:
    1. By expressing it as a probability suggests that it may not occur at all.
    2. By having a huge difference between the lower and higher estimate means that there is little likelihood that that the process of arriving at either figure is correct.
    Your first point doesn't make any sense - no prediction can be made with 100% confidence.

    Your second point makes even less sense - you don't like the result, therefore you dismiss the method? Besides, a spread of about 40cm for a prediction of sea level rises in roughly 90 years doesn't strike me as "huge" at all - perhaps you could provide us with your precise quantification of "huge"?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    Any person who calls themselves a scientist should not publish work on subjects where there is uncertainty without precisely quantifying that uncertainty and that it may not be correct at all because of that uncertainty. Even if there is a 90% probability that something will occur then there is a 10% probability that it will not occur.
    The last IPCC report, (Fourth Assessment) concluded that sea levels would 'probably' rise by between 18cm and 59cm by the year 2100. There two problems with that conclusion:
    1. By expressing it as a probability suggests that it may not occur at all.
    2. By having a huge difference between the lower and higher estimate means that there is little likelihood that that the process of arriving at either figure is correct.

    So what you say is firstly that scientists shouldn't publish work without quantifying the uncertainty around their results. Fair enough, insofar as it's possible (eg I can see issues with social sciences..).

    But then you characterize the expression of a probability as high as 90% as a 'problem'. Why? What sort of probability would not present a 'problem' for you?


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Your first point doesn't make any sense - no prediction can be made with 100% confidence.

    Your second point makes even less sense - you don't like the result, therefore you dismiss the method? Besides, a spread of about 40cm for a prediction of sea level rises in roughly 90 years doesn't strike me as "huge" at all - perhaps you could provide us with your precise quantification of "huge"?
    Of course you can make 100% accurate predictions. You can predict that full solar eclipses will occur at any point into the future and where on the earth's surface they can be observed. The whole chemical industry world is dependant on the fact that for precise inputs: ingredients, pressure, temperature, time etc, a precise outcome can be predicted. Probably the most famous scientific prediction was Halley predicting that a comet would appear 53 years before it did.
    The prediction of sea-level rise ranging from the barely noticeable to the catastrophic is another way of saying 'we just don't know'. If we don't know the only honest conclusion is: 'Not possible to predict'.
    Macha wrote: »
    So what you say is firstly that scientists shouldn't publish work without quantifying the uncertainty around their results. Fair enough, insofar as it's possible (eg I can see issues with social sciences..).

    But then you characterize the expression of a probability as high as 90% as a 'problem'. Why? What sort of probability would not present a 'problem' for you?
    A probability is just that, something which may happen or may not. Expressing it that way is an acknowledgement of the fact that certainty cannot be assured usually due to unknown factors or undue complexity .


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,108 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    Of course you can make 100% accurate predictions. You can predict that full solar eclipses will occur at any point into the future and where on the earth's surface they can be observed. The whole chemical industry world is dependant on the fact that for precise inputs: ingredients, pressure, temperature, time etc, a precise outcome can be predicted. Probably the most famous scientific prediction was Halley predicting that a comet would appear 53 years before it did.

    The prediction of sea-level rise ranging from the barely noticeable to the catastrophic is another way of saying 'we just don't know'. If we don't know the only honest conclusion is: 'Not possible to predict'.


    A probability is just that, something which may happen or may not. Expressing it that way is an acknowledgement of the fact that certainty cannot be assured usually due to unknown factors or undue complexity .

    This is just one logical fallacy after another.

    Just because scientists can make predictions about phenomenon X with a 99.99% confidence doesn't mean that predictions about a different more complex phemonenon that carry only a 50% confidence are not valid predictions.

    Lets imagine that there is a hurricane brewing in the Atlantic and the NOAA have been tracking the storm over a 5-7 day period. They can make predictions that there is perhaps a 60% chance that the storm will strike New Orleans and a 60% chance that the storm will be sufficiently powerful to breach the storm defences.

    Would you dismiss this prediction and oppose any attempt to evacuate the city of prepare for disaster on the basis that the prediction did not carry 100% certainty?

    You'd be a fool to ignore the warnings and even if the storm turns out to be a false alarm and it doesn't make landfall or weakens, the prediction was still the best that the collected efforts of the worlds scientists could provide with the best technology available to them at the time.

    You're comparing apples and oranges here. Predicting the orbit of celestial bodies using Newtownian theories of gravity is orders of magnitude more precise than predicting how a complex system will behave a century into the future.

    There are multiple models all interacting and uncertainties within each one leads to a wide range of possible outcomes, but the prediction follows a probability curve. Some outcomes are very unlikely, and some outcomes are much more likely, but the scientists will publish their data honestly and provide detailed probability statistics for each possible outcome.

    The Media of course will over simplify things and the climate change deniers will distort the findings and the cranks will make up their own predictions with far higher 'confidence' levels which will make it look like the real scientists are just hedging their bets.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    The whole chemical industry world is dependant on the fact that for precise inputs: ingredients, pressure, temperature, time etc, a precise outcome can be predicted.
    In that case, what does any company need with quality control?
    Roger_007 wrote: »
    The prediction of sea-level rise ranging from the barely noticeable to the catastrophic is another way of saying 'we just don't know'.
    18cm is barely noticeable, but 59cm is catastrophic?

    Anyways, you may be interested to know about a recent paper, which illustrates that the future global mean temperature trend predicted in the first IPCC report, way back in 1990, has so far proved to be very accurate:
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1763


  • Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Before touting statements from some leaked not yet published IPCC report, it might be good if those who touted "97% of climate scientists" on this thread could provide the basis for this figure as requested earlier.

    In the meantime, here's one persons view of the IPCC and one I tend to agree with
    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/08/the-95-certainty-is-that-the-ipcc-can-t-be-trusted
    "Consider that claim of "95% certainty", which is no more than an opinion expressed by a few IPCC authors and approved by a few others. It has no basis in mathematics or statistics and might just as well have been have been plucked from thin air, which may indeed have been the case."


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    In the meantime, here's one persons view of the IPCC and one I tend to agree with
    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/08/the-95-certainty-is-that-the-ipcc-can-t-be-trusted
    "Consider that claim of "95% certainty", which is no more than an opinion expressed by a few IPCC authors and approved by a few others. "
    So the overwhelming majority of authors and reviewers of the latest IPCC report disagree with this assertion? Got anything to support that?


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,108 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    There's a very good article here
    http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/09/examining-the-recent-slow-down-in-global-warming/
    which looks at the different models and temperature records for the various parts of the planet and asks why the temperature increase appears to have slowed down in the last decade and what implications this has for future model predictions.

    Here's my summary:
    While there is a slowdown in temperature increases, most of the earths systems are still experiencing temperature growth.
    There has been a reduction in sea surface temperatures over the past 10 years, but this has been more than offset by the deep sea temperature rises which are capable of holding vast amounts of heat energy.

    The overall long term temperature trends are still on an upward trajectory but the next decade will enable us to refine our calculations for what the climate sensitivity really is and enable us to make better predictions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 38 theLegion


    Akrasia wrote: »
    There's a very good article here
    http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/09/examining-the-recent-slow-down-in-global-warming/
    which looks at the different models and temperature records for the various parts of the planet and asks why the temperature increase appears to have slowed down in the last decade and what implications this has for future model predictions.

    Here's my summary:
    While there is a slowdown in temperature increases, most of the earths systems are still experiencing temperature growth.
    There has been a reduction in sea surface temperatures over the past 10 years, but this has been more than offset by the deep sea temperature rises which are capable of holding vast amounts of heat energy.

    The overall long term temperature trends are still on an upward trajectory but the next decade will enable us to refine our calculations for what the climate sensitivity really is and enable us to make better predictions.

    What an absolute fcuk-up:

    article-2420783-1BD2956A000005DC-553_634x376.jpg

    Leaked IPCC Report

    ‘Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.’

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379104002367

    Opps

    I look forward to the publication of the report, I hope the railroad engineer didn't throw out his choo choo trains.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,108 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    So the best that the climate deniers can come up with is a graph that still shows that the world has warmed by almost half a degree celsius in only 30 years?

    The IPCC 4th assessment prediction was that global warming would increase global average temperatures by about .2 degrees per decade. Meanwhile the global warming deniers were predicting an ice age.

    The trend continues upwards. While real scientists are trying to improve our understanding and make better predictions, the denier community are looking to score political points and anomaly hunting

    If you read the link i posted above, you will see that the actual rate of global warming is still uncertain because we can not say for certain how much warming has been absorbed by the deep oceans (deep ocean warming is still warming).


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31 PercyBlakeney


    Unfortunately, those who believe in GW keep shooting themselves in the foot and making claims which later turn out to be untrue, or are based on such flimsy evidence that one has to wonder at the impartiality of their position.

    For example, it was claimed by the IPCC that the Himalayan glaciers would be melted by 2035. It later transpired their “evidence” for making such a claim was no more than a wildly inaccurate pamphlet produced by one activist. In the wake of the scandal, the IPCC had to withdraw its claim, although why it made the claim in the first place seems to suggest an agenda.

    This month, September 2013, was supposed to be the month the Artic was “Ice free” or so we were told back in 2007. It’s not ice free, far from it, and has pretty much the same ice as has been average for the past 35 years.

    Then we had all the computer models with all their predictions, and yet temperatures have not risen as predicted in the past 17 years.

    Facts are facts. Predictions are not facts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    theLegion wrote: »
    What an absolute fcuk-up:

    article-2420783-1BD2956A000005DC-553_634x376.jpg
    So, the actual recorded temperature was within the range predicted? How does that constitute a ****-up?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    For example, it was claimed by the IPCC that the Himalayan glaciers would be melted by 2035. It later transpired their “evidence” for making such a claim was no more than a wildly inaccurate pamphlet produced by one activist. In the wake of the scandal, the IPCC had to withdraw its claim, although why it made the claim in the first place seems to suggest an agenda.
    And yet, six years on from its publication, no further evidence of an agenda has been found. The reasonable conclusion is that it was an isolated mistake.
    This month, September 2013, was supposed to be the month the Artic was “Ice free” or so we were told back in 2007. It’s not ice free, far from it, and has pretty much the same ice as has been average for the past 35 years.
    Really?
    Then we had all the computer models with all their predictions, and yet temperatures have not risen as predicted in the past 17 years.
    Really?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,108 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Unfortunately, those who believe in GW keep shooting themselves in the foot and making claims which later turn out to be untrue, or are based on such flimsy evidence that one has to wonder at the impartiality of their position.

    For example, it was claimed by the IPCC that the Himalayan glaciers would be melted by 2035. It later transpired their “evidence” for making such a claim was no more than a wildly inaccurate pamphlet produced by one activist. In the wake of the scandal, the IPCC had to withdraw its claim, although why it made the claim in the first place seems to suggest an agenda.

    This month, September 2013, was supposed to be the month the Artic was “Ice free” or so we were told back in 2007. It’s not ice free, far from it, and has pretty much the same ice as has been average for the past 35 years.

    Then we had all the computer models with all their predictions, and yet temperatures have not risen as predicted in the past 17 years.

    Facts are facts. Predictions are not facts.
    It's funny how 'those who believe in global warming' are held responsible for every single claim ever made by anyone who believes in AGW
    If you can find any mistakes by anyone on this side, that means that nobody can be trusted and all of the evidence must be wrong

    On the other hand, you do not hold the opponents of the global warming hypothesis to anywhere near the same standard. One error is enough to destroy the credibility of the entire scientific community, but global warming deniers can flat out lie and deliberately distort the evidence, but the 'climate sceptics' openly question the credibility of their own statistics or arguments.

    You are cherry picking errors and claims and only discussing data that you think supports your pre-existing opinion.

    'Glaciergate' boils down to one source in one volume of a 3 volume publication with tens of thousands of scientific references getting into the final draft of the paper without it being fully verified first.

    This error was discovered by the scientific community themselves (better late than never) and of the thousands of other sources that 'sceptics' have been scrutinising since, looking to discredit the IPCC, the vast majority of them are valid and represent the best most rigorous science available at the time.

    The claim about the Arctic Sea ice was not a claim that the arctic will definitely be ice free in 2013, it was a claim that the summer Ice 'could' have disappeared in 2013 if certain conditions had been met. It wasn't a prediction with a high level of confidence, and the vast majority of scientists didn't agree that it was likely. However, the vast majority of scientists do agree that a few decades, we will see ice free summers in the Arctic.

    What do the climate change 'sceptics' predict about arctic sea ice?


Advertisement