Australian Politics Forum - IPCC 95% sure about AGW

Chimp_Logic Gold Member Offline πολιτικός Posts: 4826 Mawson Base Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #75 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 10:59pm Lots of DENIALIST crack pots out tonight. You can smell the stench of their pathetic ignorance, deranged conspiracy paranoia and individualistic sociopathic greed from many miles. Like most things there is always a good side, and that's the fact that these ignorant clown freaks aren't in positions of power.
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

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137969
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #76 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 11:05pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 10:59pm:

You can smell the stench of their pathetic ignorance, deranged conspiracy paranoia and individualistic sociopathic greed from many miles.

1. Do you know what "ignorance" means? How are skeptics "ignorant"?

2. What "conspiracy"? Can you elaborate?

3. "Greed"? Please explain.

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 #77 - Sep 29^th, 2013 at 7:30am

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

...
To be clear, I couldn't care less what you regard me as.

I doubt that. Trolling is calculated to offend. You offend me. That matters to you.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

Moreover, I'm not adverse to onanism ...

Evidently.

Meanwhile, the bush fire season has started early. I live on the land, so I'll have less time to spend here.

According to the vast majority of the best qualified, global warming will lead to conditions like those responsible for the early start of the bush fire season becoming more common. Global warming; remember that? You treat it as a joke.

If you'd ever helped a neighbour put down stock, still walking around but so badly burned that they won't survive, some on their knees because they've walked out of their hooves, maybe you'd take the issue seriously. Probably not; it's all a game to you.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 29^th, 2013 at 8:33am by # »

IP Logged

Innocent bystander Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4220 Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #78 - Sep 29^th, 2013 at 9:29am # wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 7:30am: If you'd ever helped a neighbour put down stock, still walking around but so badly burned that they won't survive, some on their knees because they've walked out of their hooves, maybe you'd take the issue seriously Gee thats never happened before
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 #79 - Sep 29^th, 2013 at 12:39pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 9:36am:

And heres the scientific method they used to come to that 95% conclusion Grin

Yesterday, a reporter asked me how the IPCC came up with the 95% number. Here is the exchange that I had with him:

Reporter: I’m hoping you can answer a question about the upcoming IPCC report. When the report states that scientists are “95 percent certain” that human activities are largely to cause for global warming, what does that mean? How is 95 percent calculated? What is the basis for it? And if the certainty rate has risen from 90 in 2007 to 95 percent now, does that mean that the likelihood of something is greater? Or that scientists are just more certain? And is there a difference?

JC: The 95% is basically expert judgment, it is a negotiated figure among the authors. The increase from 90-95% means that they are more certain. How they can justify this is beyond me.

Reporter: You mean they sit around and say, “How certain are you?” “Oh, I feel about 95 percent certain. Michael over there at Penn State feels a little more certain. And Judy at Georgia Tech feels a little less. So, yeah, overall I’d say we’re about 95 percent certain.” Please tell me it’s more rigorous than that.

JC: Well I wasn’t in the room, but last report they said 90%, and perhaps they felt it was appropriate or politic that they show progress and up it to 95%.

Reporter: So it really is as subjective as that?

JC: As far as I know, this is what goes on. All this has never been documented.

[i]Yesterday, a reporter asked me how the IPCC came up with the 95% number. Here is the exchange that I had with him:

Reporter: I’m hoping you can answer a question about the upcoming IPCC report. When the report states that scientists are “95 percent certain” that human activities are largely to cause for global warming, what does that mean? How is 95 percent calculated? What is the basis for it? And if the certainty rate has risen from 90 in 2007 to 95 percent now, does that mean that the likelihood of something is greater? Or that scientists are just more certain? And is there a difference?

JC: The 95% is basically expert judgment, it is a negotiated figure among the authors. The increase from 90-95% means that they are more certain. How they can justify this is beyond me.

Reporter: You mean they sit around and say, “How certain are you?” “Oh, I feel about 95 percent certain. Michael over there at Penn State feels a little more certain. And Judy at Georgia Tech feels a little less. So, yeah, overall I’d say we’re about 95 percent certain.” Please tell me it’s more rigorous than that.

JC: Well I wasn’t in the room, but last report they said 90%, and perhaps they felt it was appropriate or politic that they show progress and up it to 95%.

Reporter: So it really is as subjective as that?

JC: As far as I know, this is what goes on. All this has never been documented.

Yeah its not from science that they get this 95% certainty...??

Its from taking a vote......as simple as hands up.......!!!!!

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

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #80 - Sep 29^th, 2013 at 1:39pm Quote: JC: Well I wasn’t in the room, but last report they said 90%, and perhaps they felt it was appropriate or politic that they show progress and up it to 95%. wasn't in the room...but thought I'd guess anyway.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Ajax Gold Member Offline CO2 has never controlled temperature on Earth Posts: 10982 Australia Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #81 - Sep 30^th, 2013 at 9:49am How can governments pass a tax on the air we breath, when the so called specialists say with a vote that its 95% certain. Shouldn't it be the science that dictates policy rather than a vote based on opinion.......??????
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

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #82 - Sep 30^th, 2013 at 2:21pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 9:29am:

# wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 7:30am:

If you'd ever helped a neighbour put down stock, still walking around but so badly burned that they won't survive, some on their knees because they've walked out of their hooves, maybe you'd take the issue seriously

Gee thats never happened before Roll Eyes

Who but the most degenerate will do what the best minds warn increases the risk?

Back to top

IP Logged

Ajax Gold Member Offline CO2 has never controlled temperature on Earth Posts: 10982 Australia Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #83 - Sep 30^th, 2013 at 3:00pm # wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 2:21pm: Who but the most degenerate will do what the best minds warn increases the risk? Are you saying that anthropogenic co2 emissions are responsible for natural disasters......????
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

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #84 - Sep 30^th, 2013 at 8:06pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

# wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 2:21pm:

Who but the most degenerate will do what the best minds warn increases the risk?

Are you saying that anthropogenic co2 emissions are responsible for natural disasters......????

Are you denying that the best minds warn that global warming, which is substantially anthropogenic, increases the risk?

Back to top

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #85 - Sep 30^th, 2013 at 8:23pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

# wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 2:21pm:

Who but the most degenerate will do what the best minds warn increases the risk?

Are you saying that anthropogenic co2 emissions are responsible for natural disasters......????

nice try....lol

Alteration of the globe's climatic conditions via human induced rises in CO2 emissions cannot be used to explain any individual natural event or disaster.

Its all about intensity and frequency over a stochastically significant time scale/frame Mr Ajax (you know, medium to long trends etc - you know this right?)

Of course you already know this (at least I hope that you do anyway)

One must be very careful when they gallop in here with spin and distorted loaded questions totally defenceless.

One can be slaughtered in public like the lambs of Jacob.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 30^th, 2013 at 8:51pm by Chimp_Logic »

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

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #86 - Sep 30^th, 2013 at 8:53pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 8:23pm:

Its all about intensity and frequency over a stochastically significant time scale/frame Mr Ajax (you know, medium to long trends etc - you know this right?)

Are you kidding?

I doubt if he appreciates the distinction between stochastic and deterministic. This is Mr Nowarmingsince1998 you're talking to. The concept of statistical significance is lost on him.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137969
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #87 - Sep 30^th, 2013 at 8:55pm

# wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 8:06pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

# wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 2:21pm:

Who but the most degenerate will do what the best minds warn increases the risk?

Are you saying that anthropogenic co2 emissions are responsible for natural disasters......????

Are you denying that the best minds warn that global warming, which is substantially anthropogenic, increases the risk?

Why couldn't you just answer with a simple 'yes' or 'no' ?

Try it:

Are you saying that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are responsible for natural disasters?

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #88 - Sep 30^th, 2013 at 9:04pm Let's just make it the ambiguous question thread. natural disasters are caused by climate change bottles are black. cancer is caused by cigarette smoking. Three similar phrases. All ambiguous. All can be answered yes or no depending on context.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #89 - Sep 30^th, 2013 at 9:20pm

muso wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 8:53pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 8:23pm:

Its all about intensity and frequency over a stochastically significant time scale/frame Mr Ajax (you know, medium to long trends etc - you know this right?)

Are you kidding?

I doubt if he appreciates the distinction between stochastic and deterministic. This is Mr Nowarmingsince1998 you're talking to. The concept of statistical significance is lost on him.

Maybe he is a string theorist - a foot in both camps

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