Australian Politics Forum - IPCC 95% sure about AGW

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #315 - Oct 13^th, 2013 at 3:46pm

Usually it's okay to be wrong, to review your hypothesis and adjust your theory to match the facts. What I've seen is the opposite, adjusting and misrepresenting facts to suit a theory. When an economist says "I'm certain!" and the empirical evidence and the test of time finds them wanting, they lose credibility. Does this not happen in every field of science? Oh that's right it doesn't matter how many times they get it wrong, it isn't millions of lives they are playing with after all. Money grows on trees am I right? Wink

Failed policies don't effect the working class am I right? Wink

Some of you have done a great job smoothing out the issues, to help bring understanding. But even so the facts and failures can't be ignored and explained away, not when it's this serious. I know it's the usual narrative against skeptics "if you're wrong we all die! our children die!", however this downplays the flip side, it also overstates the harm for supporting a different solution. It's not "skeptics" VS "alarmists", it's people trying to decide on the best solution for everyone.

If we listened to the most vocal of scientists and took their word as gospel truth, we'd be living in a fascist technocracy. When it effects everyone, we each have a voice. When a scientists disagrees, even just one, they shouldn't be ignored.(BS consensus aside) What if that one person is right and is pulling their hair out because they can't stop the sheep following the most vocal leading them over a cliff?

Back to top

IP Logged

# Gold Member Offline A fool is certain: an ignorant fool, absolutely so Posts: 2603	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #316 - Oct 13^th, 2013 at 6:45pm Vuk11 wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 3:46pm: ...What if that one person is right ... Then we consider probabilities. In my experience, the majority is more often right (or at least closer to right) than any minority. What's your experience?
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 139604
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #317 - Oct 13^th, 2013 at 6:54pm

# wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 3:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

# wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 7:30pm:

... I know that AGW is actually no longer a scientific theory.
...

At 95%+ certainty.

...
An "undeniable fact".
...

D'you reckon?

At 95%+ certainty, I'd have said beyond reasonable doubt.

1. The 95%+ figure was plucked out of the air.

2. What you'd have said is merely one opinion.

3. It's a theory. Not a bad one, but still just a theory.

Back to top

IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #318 - Oct 13^th, 2013 at 7:02pm

# wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 6:45pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 3:46pm:

...What if that one person is right ...

Then we consider probabilities.

In my experience, the majority is more often right (or at least closer to right) than any minority. What's your experience?

In my experience there is no clear distinction. Whether it's gambling, economics or anything else probabilities aren't always the be all and end all. A lot of important events the single mind has overcome the block of the many. In other situations majority can be good to warn of potential ills. So what I'm really trying to say is:

1. Leaving the control of the lives of humanity to a vote is immoral. It's much more beneficial to persuade then to force.
2. Therefore the acts of many individuals outweigh the acts of the few representing the majority.
3. If it effects everyone, each has an equal voice to their own destiny. Whether they are knowledgeable or not, the best situation is to provide ample argument for both sides and allow people to use their own logic to determine conclusion.

You get nothing good in the long run from force. The funny thing is whether you're an AGW skeptic or supporter, the middle ground is still observable climate change. The issue comes in the cause and the solution. In my opinion the cause is regardless, especially when you have solutions that would be efficient regardless of AGW or natural climate change. We need to start agreeing on failures and work on solutions, there are many proposed that can be supported regardless of cause. Whether they are for preparation or prevention.

Back to top

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #319 - Oct 13^th, 2013 at 10:24pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 6:54pm:

# wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 3:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

# wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 7:30pm:

... I know that AGW is actually no longer a scientific theory.
...

At 95%+ certainty.

...
An "undeniable fact".
...

D'you reckon?

At 95%+ certainty, I'd have said beyond reasonable doubt.

1. The 95%+ figure was plucked out of the air.

2. What you'd have said is merely one opinion.

3. It's a theory. Not a bad one, but still just a theory.

So based on this assessment you would recommend the international community implements NO mitigational actions against the effects of AGW?

Remember, Special and General Relativity are also theories, but without their predictions and corrections, GPS for example, would produce errors in the order of kilometres rather than centimetres.

Ramping down the fossil fuel industry and de-forestation sectors NOW, sounds like prudent and sensible courses of action for the world to take don't you think?

The alternative worse case scenario is just not something we as a species should gamble with.

And remember, the fossil fuel corporations made a joint statement (2003) recommending that the world takes urgent action to mitigate the climatic and other effects caused by AGW. (even if they do fund propaganda outlets and spin doctors who are there to confuse the public)

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #320 - Oct 14^th, 2013 at 9:33am

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 3:46pm:

Usually it's okay to be wrong, to review your hypothesis and adjust your theory to match the facts.

Hey Vuk I agree, this is what science is all about.

Quote:

What I've seen is the opposite, adjusting and misrepresenting facts to suit a theory. When an economist says "I'm certain!" and the empirical evidence and the test of time finds them wanting, they lose credibility.

Again I agree and wonder why governments around the world are still listening to the IPCC's computer circulation models when they have been so wrong in their predictions.

Quote:

Does this not happen in every field of science?

Definitely there are scientists still scrutinising Newtons & Einstein's work yet we don't call for their heads or call them heretics and ask for their death.

Quote:

Oh that's right it doesn't matter how many times they get it wrong, it isn't millions of lives they are playing with after all. Money grows on trees am I right? Wink

Failed policies don't effect the working class am I right? Wink

The only thing that drives the AGW religion spear headed by the IPCC is that a tax on the air we breath be passed on all nations. It doesn't matter that their science is continually torn to shreds because its false and misleading.

Quote:

Some of you have done a great job smoothing out the issues, to help bring understanding. But even so the facts and failures can't be ignored and explained away, not when it's this serious.

The green movement is at the head of carbon pricing, these individuals have a very different view of the world than your average citizen.

It is my opinion that if most Australians knew how the greens where formed and what they really stand for they would be extinct by the next election.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/1/the-greens-agenda-in-their-own-...

Quote:

I know it's the usual narrative against skeptics "if you're wrong we all die! our children die!", however this downplays the flip side, it also overstates the harm for supporting a different solution. It's not "skeptics" VS "alarmists", it's people trying to decide on the best solution for everyone.

Again I agree, this bickering has also destroyed the scientific debate and placed it on the back burner.

Quote:

If we listened to the most vocal of scientists and took their word as gospel truth, we'd be living in a fascist technocracy.

Life would indeed be a drag........... Sad

Quote:

When it effects everyone, we each have a voice. When a scientists disagrees, even just one, they shouldn't be ignored.(BS consensus aside) What if that one person is right and is pulling their hair out because they can't stop the sheep following the most vocal leading them over a cliff?

Gillard, Swan, Combet, Rudd, and now Shorten keep telling us the Australian public are right behind carbon pricing.

Why have they never taken it to a vote.....?????

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 139604
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #321 - Oct 14^th, 2013 at 9:36am

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 10:24pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 6:54pm:

# wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 3:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

# wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 7:30pm:

... I know that AGW is actually no longer a scientific theory.
...

At 95%+ certainty.

...
An "undeniable fact".
...

D'you reckon?

At 95%+ certainty, I'd have said beyond reasonable doubt.

1. The 95%+ figure was plucked out of the air.

2. What you'd have said is merely one opinion.

3. It's a theory. Not a bad one, but still just a theory.

So based on this assessment you would recommend the international community implements NO mitigational actions against the effects of AGW?

No. Absolutely not.

In fact, I've lost count of the amount of times that I've said I have absolutely no problem with Governments taking precautionary action against the possible effects of AGW.

Back to top

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #322 - Oct 14^th, 2013 at 9:42am

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 10:24pm:

So based on this assessment you would recommend the international community implements NO mitigational actions against the effects of AGW?

There is no empirical evidence that AGW is responsible for the last 50 odds years of warming, its only a hypothesis supported by computer circulation models (CCM).

And with so many of the (CCM) predictions being way of the mark why should we embark on such a costly exercise.

Quote:

Ramping down the fossil fuel industry and de-forestation sectors NOW, sounds like prudent and sensible courses of action for the world to take don't you think?

Ramping down the fossil fuel industry on falsifying evidence is not sound policy.

I do agree about de-forestation.

Quote:

The alternative worse case scenario is just not something we as a species should gamble with.

The AGW hypothesis is dead wrong, why should we commit to a lie that wants to create a new market on wall street for the moguls to tax us on the air we breath.

Quote:

And remember, the fossil fuel corporations made a joint statement (2003) recommending that the world takes urgent action to mitigate the climatic and other effects caused by AGW. (even if they do fund propaganda outlets and spin doctors who are there to confuse the public)

That's because these very same moguls that are financing global warming also own most parts of the fossil fuel industry.

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #323 - Oct 14^th, 2013 at 4:29pm

Ajax wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 9:42am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 10:24pm:

So based on this assessment you would recommend the international community implements NO mitigational actions against the effects of AGW?

There is no empirical evidence that AGW is responsible for the last 50 odds years of warming, its only a hypothesis supported by computer circulation models (CCM).

That is an incorrect statement. (no empirical evidence? lol)

list the circulation models that predict a static or decreasing global temperature as atmospheric CO2 levels increase - can you find any?

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #324 - Oct 14^th, 2013 at 9:53pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 4:29pm:

There is no empirical evidence that AGW is responsible for the last 50 odds years of warming, its only a hypothesis supported by computer circulation models (CCM).

Listen chimp even the IPCC have admitted that their models have over estimated AGW.

What more is there to say.......??????

If your leading authority on global warming has admitted they where wrong.

You have lost the battle......!!!!!

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 14^th, 2013 at 10:00pm by Ajax »

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #325 - Oct 14^th, 2013 at 9:59pm

Ajax wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 9:53pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 4:29pm:

There is no empirical evidence that AGW is responsible for the last 50 odds years of warming, its only a hypothesis supported by computer circulation models (CCM).

Listen chimp even the IPCC have admitted that their models have over estimated AGW.

What more is there to say.......??????

If you r leading authority on global warming has admitted they where wrong.

You have lost the battle......!!!!!

which models and over what time period?

post your peer reviewed articles

demonstrate your delusions so laughter can ensure clown freak of Jacob

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #326 - Oct 14^th, 2013 at 10:06pm

are you playing dumb chimp to cover up the nonsense of the IPCC....???

Or

Aren't you man enough to stand up and say yeah ok they may have been off....???

Quote:

Based on current model results, we predict:

Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C)” [IPCC FAR summary]

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/the-ipcc-1990-far-predictions-were-wrong/

Quote:

In an attempt to downplay the recent halt in global warming, the IPCC have claimed in their Summary for Policymakers that:

As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 °C per decade.)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/29/hide-the-decline/

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 14^th, 2013 at 10:14pm by Ajax »

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #327 - Oct 14^th, 2013 at 10:17pm

Ajax wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 10:06pm:

are you playing dumb chimp to cover up the nonsense of the IPCC....???

Or

Aren't you man enough to stand up and say yeah ok they may have been off....???

Quote:

Based on current model results, we predict:

Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C)” [IPCC FAR summary]

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/the-ipcc-1990-far-predictions-were-wrong/

Why are you concerned about what the IPCC are claiming in their reports?

I thought you said that the atmospheric CO2 level should be ramped up as quickly as possible because it plays no role in the observed warming trends measured over the past century or so?

Don't you remember?

You deny the basic high school level science that underpins AGW, on the basis of CO2 not being a greenhouse gas.

Shouldn't you be doing something else?

Like burning forests and investing in the fossil fuel industry to make short term profits?

What are you doing in here?

Who are you really?

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

# Gold Member Offline A fool is certain: an ignorant fool, absolutely so Posts: 2603	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #328 - Oct 15^th, 2013 at 6:04am greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13^th, 2013 at 6:54pm: ... 1. The 95%+ figure was plucked out of the air. ... Yet another assertion that you've no hope of credibly substantiating. Still trolling, young onanist. greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:56pm: ... I'm not adverse to onanism ...
Back to top	IP Logged

ImSpartacus2 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6913	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #329 - Oct 15^th, 2013 at 6:06am Hi Chimp, I'm having some trouble copying on my tablet at the moment but can I refer you to my last post on the Anthropogenic global warming thread- Its about astroturfing and sockpuppets. Might explain a few things for you. Regards
Back to top	« Last Edit: Oct 15^th, 2013 at 6:39am by ImSpartacus2 » IP Logged