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.
The question that I don't see being answered either here or in media discussions of this report is what is being done to FIX the problem that led to all of this bad data?
In most of the jobs I've had in my lifetime, there would be an internal review, people would likely be fired and most importantly, steps would be taken to assure this did not EVER happen again. We would learn from it.
Instead, I see the alarmists saying we still should take them seriously without telling us how they are addressing their errors or how they will prevent them in the future.
Both sides in this debate have legitimate points! There is corruption and distortion being paid for by oil interests and there is also alarmism fueled by the desire for continued funding and political power.
I'm not a science "denier" but I am also not naive enough to think that science can't be influenced by politics, ideology and hubris.
Don't leave out the biggie MONEY/GRANTS for further studies/projects. That's the biggie.
The question that I don't see being answered either here or in media discussions of this report is what is being done to FIX the problem that led to all of this bad data?
In most of the jobs I've had in my lifetime, there would be an internal review, people would likely be fired and most importantly, steps would be taken to assure this did not EVER happen again. We would learn from it.
Instead, I see the alarmists saying we still should take them seriously without telling us how they are addressing their errors or how they will prevent them in the future.
Both sides in this debate have legitimate points! There is corruption and distortion being paid for by oil interests and there is also alarmism fueled by the desire for continued funding and political power.
I'm not a science "denier" but I am also not naive enough to think that science can't be influenced by politics, ideology and hubris.
This paper says nothing on anything you write above. I can't believe this discussion is still following the misleading narrative being put forth in the OP.
There is a legitimate point in your post - but this point is largely overblown (and totally misrepresented by people like the writers at Breitbart). Climate scientists do take seriously the accuracy of their data, and do seek to understand discrepancies.
This paper says nothing on anything you write above. I can't believe this discussion is still following the misleading narrative being put forth in the OP.
There is a legitimate point in your post - but this point is largely overblown (and totally misrepresented by people like the writers at Breitbart). Climate scientists do take seriously the accuracy of their data, and do seek to understand discrepancies.
Yet we have had years and years.. DECADES of alarmist reports from the IPCC and each time a new one comes out, if you question the level of alarmism, you are a "science denier" or a "flat earther"
If scientists did take the accuracy of their reports seriously, they would speak out more vocally about the alarmism and the ridiculous notions of 97% consensus, like science should be a popularity contest.
Skepticism should be WELCOMED in science.
I was mocking the IPCC and their "post-normal" cargo cult masquerading as science.
I know. :-) I was mocking the “settled science “ crowd.
After I listened to a few climate scientists talking about climate, I realized it’s not only beyond my pay grade but way beyond virtually everybody’s. It’s not something we can handle right now. Maybe 20-30 years later we can understand a little more.
"Settled science" dogma is strong when not even a warmist can challenge Church of Climatology canon.
Did you read your link?
Quote:
Our results indicate that based on the current understanding of the Earth system, the window for achieving 1.5C is still narrowly open. If very aggressive mitigation scenarios can be implemented from today onwards, they may be sufficient to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement.
It seems the original study is being misrepresented as something else by folks trying to play "gotcha".
Humans have contributed to climate change, nothing really to argue against that statement.
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.
