Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet."
So, the IPCC publishes socio-economic data, but not scientific data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Next, their mission statement is not to prove anything, that is a LIE on your part.
The purpose of the IPCC is to assess “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.”
As everyone can plainly see, they have no interest in natural climate change, only "human-induced."
Their "assessments" are purported proof that human-induced climate change is occurring.
You do understand you are claiming man-made climate change is real, and the citing the IPCC as proof that it is real, right?
Your double-speak is amusing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
They couldn't prove anything AS THEY GENERATE NO DATA.
Generating data isn't necessary to prove something.
I can gather evidence to prove a murder was committed. It isn't necessary for me to commit the actual murder in order to prove the murder was committed, duh!
The IPCC cherry-picks their data, and then refuses to publish the data they cherry-pick, but they're all too happy to publish socio-economic data.
Should you trust the government? Should you trust people who depend on government-funding? Are these "scientists" merely funded to do any research they want? Or do they have to apply for grants to prove a government-approved hypothesis?
What is the actual scientific consensus? Who writes the IPCC report?
The vast-majority of scientists believe that humans are causing the Earth to warm, that CO2 and methane are Greenhouse-gases, and that warming-temperatures will lead to sea-level rise. But most "deniers" believe that.
Where scientists don't agree, is the role of GHG's relative to other factors, and what, if anything, should be done.
The leftists like to talk in apocalyptic terms, "The world is going to end in 12-years". And if you don't believe what some politicians in the United Nations wrote in their IPCC report(which they derive just like you and me from reading through scientific-publications), then you're a "denier".
Nobody says 'the world is going to end in 12 years', the world will carry on regardless for billions of years. The question is whether big parts of the world will continue to be fit for human habitation. If parts of the world become unfit for human habitation then there will be large scale migration of those people to parts of the world that remain ok.
We already know that the IPCC scientists lied and falsified data to show a predetermined outcome that didn't fit the actual data ("Let's use Mike's [Mann] trick to hide the decline"). That automatically disqualifies their conclusions. They're intentionally dishonest, right off the bat.
There are a number of misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'
The "decline" does not refer to a "decline in global temperature" as often claimed. It actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations. This decline began in the 1960s when tree-ring proxies diverged from the temperature record.
"Mike's Nature trick" has nothing to do with "hide the decline". "Mike's trick" refers to a technique by Michael Mann to plot instrumental temperature data on the same graph as reconstructed data over the past millennium.
The divergence of tree-ring proxies from temperatures after 1960 is openly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature and the last two IPCC assessment reports.
We already know that the IPCC scientists lied and falsified data to show a predetermined outcome that didn't fit the actual data ("Let's use Mike's [Mann] trick to hide the decline"). That automatically disqualifies their conclusions. They're intentionally dishonest, right off the bat.
The problem is that other so-called "scientists" use the IPCC's faked conclusions to influence their conclusions, as well.
Though the controversy has received more than just a little attention given the competing interests and agendas, what makes you so confident about your claim here too? Despite REAL scientists who insist you are wrong?
"In 2009 and 2010, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was attacked for minor errors in its sprawling 2007 report on climate change. To set the record straight and provide appropriate scientific context, the Union of Concerned Scientists assembled a series of explanatory backgrounders on specific allegations about the report.
Overall, the IPCC's conclusions remain indisputable: Climate change is happening now and human activity is causing it. Nations around the world will have to adapt to at least some climate change, including sea level rise, changes in precipitation, disruptions to agriculture, and species extinctions. But if we dramatically reduce our emissions, we can prevent the worst effects of climate change."
After all, despite the controversy that may or may not justify dismissal as you seem intent to insist upon, sure seems to me the continuing overwhelming consensus among scientists all over the world remains essentially the same. There is a REAL cause for concern and need to at least slow the damage if not reverse it.
Does the use of tobacco always cause cancer? It can trigger cancer in some people as does the excessive use of a lot of things. Also, people get lung cancer who have never smoked. So I would tell you your logic doesn't work.
This is some pretty scary logic here...
Going 100 MPH on the freeway doesn't always kill people, but of course speeding does increase the chances of accidents, injury and death. Others have died in car accidents who never exceeded the speed limit. Wearing a seat belt doesn't always save lives either, but not wearing one is just dumb. Similarly, despite your kind of logic what does good logic tell us?
PS: I sure hope my logic is the better logic, because I quit smoking about 10 years ago, and it was not at all easy. About the hardest thing I've ever done. I missed smoking a lot, for a long time. Fortunately not anymore, but still, I am quite certain I quit for good reason, despite those who smoke and may not die of cancer. There are also the myriad of other nasty issues short of death to consider as well, just like there is much about man's many negative impacts on our environment we can do much better to mitigate even if it isn't about the end of days...
Should you trust the government? Should you trust people who depend on government-funding? Are these "scientists" merely funded to do any research they want? Or do they have to apply for grants to prove a government-approved hypothesis?
What is the actual scientific consensus? Who writes the IPCC report?
The vast-majority of scientists believe that humans are causing the Earth to warm, that CO2 and methane are Greenhouse-gases, and that warming-temperatures will lead to sea-level rise. But most "deniers" believe that.
Where scientists don't agree, is the role of GHG's relative to other factors, and what, if anything, should be done.
The leftists like to talk in apocalyptic terms, "The world is going to end in 12-years". And if you don't believe what some politicians in the United Nations wrote in their IPCC report(which they derive just like you and me from reading through scientific-publications), then you're a "denier".
One of the reasons I tend to consider the consensus in the aggregate is because I DON'T "trust" anyone...
I tend to put credence where it seems the expertise, experience and knowledge warrants the consideration, much like I pay attention to what my doctor says rather than the guy who smokes and notes that not everyone who smokes dies of lung cancer. I don't listen or trust any ONE voice or any ONE source. As I've commented more than a few times in this forum, I do my best to "triangulate for the truth." Doing so requires multiple points of reference, sources of data, versions of possibility.
Am I going to trust pundits here in this forum over what I read and hear from all manner of informed professional sources, even other than the IPCC?
I also don't think it smart to segregate these positions as "leftist." There begins the sort of political rhetoric that discloses the sort of bias that simply clouds judgement. Facts are not "leftist."
What is important is objective critical thinking about the facts wherever they may lead. If those more in the know begin to change their informed opinion and/or predictions, then of course I will follow that story wherever it goes as well, but in the meantime, no one can intelligently refute what the prevailing view tends to be among most of the world's scientists. Certainly not lay people who see this as more of a political battle.
No one seems interested in taking me up on any of these book recommendations (which also tells me something) but read "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" by Jared Diamond. All non-fiction, about how all too often we're a little too little a little too late...
To start off, I do believe in climate change (I do read a lot, and the evidence does indicate at least some human-caused climate change.)
The "denier" part comes in when it comes to proposed "solutions" to said climate change. That's when I become a hard-core Denier. Not because I deny said climate change is taking place, it's me denying my vote for anyone who wants me to pay through the nose for their hair-brained "clean energy" programs. No thanks to that!
I like my cheap energy, I like long-distance road travel in my gasoline-powered car, and I love international jet travel (which "they" claim is a cardinal sin against the environment. ) I also love having a good economy which provides a comfortable standard of living for the vast majority of us. We cannot have that without fossil fuels.
So yes, please call me a Denier. It's a label I'm proud to wear - all the way to the polling station.
There’s so many predictions these extraordinary scientists claim will happen, but never came to light, actually, quite the opposite.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
!
) I also love having a good economy which provides a comfortable standard of living for the vast majority of us. We cannot have that without fossil fuels.
