More climate change uncertainty. The models don't fit the actual observations

canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Is a warmer planet something to worry about? Should we all turn our pockets inside out and make ALGORE a multi-millionaire as penance?
Click to expand...

That all depends upon how prone you are to hudred year storms and 200 year droughts occuring every ten years or so.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
"Mr. Lewis is an expert reviewer of the recently leaked draft of the IPCC's WG1 Scientific Report. The IPCC forbids him to quote from it, but he is privy to all the observational best estimates and uncertainty ranges the draft report gives. What he has told me is dynamite."
Click to expand...

I have a big problem with "researchers" that are actually reviewers who don't contribute any original data to a discussion but instead continue only to cricique other's work. In the long run they don't do anyone but their employers any good at all. The GCC was expert at this sort of thing, so much so that they spawned an entire industry around it.

Few here kept up with the "scientific debate" over cigarettes being causal to lung cancer. I took decades for the "doubt" that the tobacco industry infected public debate with to finally sink in. In fact that doubt still persists in the realm of second hand smoke. Now the problem is that eventualy the public loses faith in science as a result of this new industry of doubt and that is exactly what is happening. On the one hand you see large grants being used to study the effects and causes of global warming, on the other you see even larger amounts being pumped into the creation of distrust with the dingular purpose of preserving the very valuable status quo for those who have the most to gain in having it stay that way for as long as possible. Just like the tobacco industry did.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
That's just like, your opinion man.
Click to expand...

Gin has a point abandon. The more we inflict the population with emotionalism the less the science is taken seriously. Beyond that, we are not in the business of curtailing global warming because the fuzzy, sad polarbears just have to be saved, we are in it because prime realestate on Manhattan island needs to be saved. Start showing pictures of the Battery under 4 feet of water and you will finally get the attention of those who might make a direct difference.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
I have a big problem with "researchers" that are actually reviewers who don't contribute any original data to a discussion but instead continue only to cricique other's work. In the long run they don't do anyone but their employers any good at all. The GCC was expert at this sort of thing, so much so that they spawned an entire industry around it.

Few here kept up with the "scientific debate" over cigarettes being causal to lung cancer. I took decades for the "doubt" that the tobacco industry infected public debate with to finally sink in. In fact that doubt still persists in the realm of second hand smoke. Now the problem is that eventualy the public loses faith in science as a result of this new industry of doubt and that is exactly what is happening. On the one hand you see large grants being used to study the effects and causes of global warming, on the other you see even larger amounts being pumped into the creation of distrust with the dingular purpose of preserving the very valuable status quo for those who have the most to gain in having it stay that way for as long as possible. Just like the tobacco industry did.
Click to expand...
The process you describe is known as "peer review" and is pretty standard practice in science. Nic Lewis pointed out an error in an earlier paper published by IPCC, for example, and IPCC fessed up to the error and issued a correction. Honest review of the data, the numerical and scientific methods used, and the conclusions drawn is a very good thing, especially when the conclusions are being used to drive fundamental societal changes.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
canndo said:
Gin has a point abandon. The more we inflict the population with emotionalism the less the science is taken seriously. Beyond that, we are not in the business of curtailing global warming because the fuzzy, sad polarbears just have to be saved, we are in it because prime realestate on Manhattan island needs to be saved. Start showing pictures of the Battery under 4 feet of water and you will finally get the attention of those who might make a direct difference.
Click to expand...
True, but that's one gift horse into whose mouth I'm not looking. cn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top