Top Scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong…

heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
I'm glad this thread came here... Maybe by removing it from the Politics section, only "adults" will actually discuss it.

I'm still waiting for the 1st report which comes out next week. I'll be curious to see how much the IPCC has to massage their models to confirm their bias.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
"The “summary for policymakers” of the report, seen by the Mail on Sunday[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif], states that the world is warming at a rate of[/FONT] 0.12C[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif] per decade since 1951, compared to a prediction of[/FONT] 0.13C[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif] per decade in their last assessment published in 2007."[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]a difference of .01C hardly warrants the headline. [/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]personally im going to wait for the official report to be released rather than listen to sensationalist newspaper reports[/FONT]
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
This (so far) is my favourite part of the Summary -- remember, this is not the proper report. That doesn't come out for another 3 days (Sept. 30)

But anyway, check out those error bars :!: :lol:
Can you detect any clues as to what is being focused on more by the IPCC?

IPCC rad force.PNG
 
G

Greensome

Member
I find a lot of the time, climate change naysayers have little understanding and often present no evidence, opting instead to opine on the evidence presented through the peer review process, that supports climate change :)


Opinion = shit in science, and that's why we have peer review. To date no papers have been published with evidence contradicting climate change that I'm aware of. And all this latest story is about are mistakes in a forecast of temperature change, and non-scientific politicized people think that this means it isn't happening because of a .01c error. Just think, if a weather forecast calls for a high of 100F, does that mean that it was not hot because it only reached 99?

The fact that it can be predicted to the accuracy of .01C is a good clue that it is happening based upon our current understanding. How else could the predictions be so accurate if it was all made up? I mean, I hope folks realize that if you are going to stand on the notion that the temp increase is .12c/decade instead of .13c/decade and therefore scientists are wrong, how do you explain the .12c/decade increase in temp if global warming isn't happening?
LOL
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Greensome said:
I find a lot of the time, climate change naysayers have little understanding and often present no evidence, opting instead to opine on the evidence presented through the peer review process, that supports climate change :)
Click to expand...
That may be true to a large extent, but it equally applies to sycophants of the consensus.

Opinion = shit in science, and that's why we have peer review. To date no papers have been published with evidence contradicting climate change that I'm aware of. And all this latest story is about are mistakes in a forecast of temperature change, and non-scientific politicized people think that this means it isn't happening because of a .01c error. Just think, if a weather forecast calls for a high of 100F, does that mean that it was not hot because it only reached 99?
Click to expand...
You're not looking very carefully...

The fact that it can be predicted to the accuracy of .01C is a good clue that it is happening based upon our current understanding. How else could the predictions be so accurate if it was all made up? I mean, I hope folks realize that if you are going to stand on the notion that the temp increase is .12c/decade instead of .13c/decade and therefore scientists are wrong, how do you explain the .12c/decade increase in temp if global warming isn't happening?
LOL
Click to expand...
The only people arguing from that standpoint are sensationalists and the nescient...

This is what I just watched. I like the direction it is going as far as coming to grips with the complexity of climate sensitivity:

[video=youtube;Y72H3JnlzBw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y72H3JnlzBw[/video]

He's not the best lecturer in the world, but the demo he shows is worth contemplating...
 
G

Greensome

Member
heckler73 said:
You're not looking very carefully...
Click to expand...
Still don't see it. When I say no papers published, I'm referring to peer reviewed work published in scientific journals. There is no point of contention in science over whether or not climate change is happening. People still considering that are in the stone age.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Greensome said:
Still don't see it. When I say no papers published, I'm referring to peer reviewed work published in scientific journals. There is no point of contention in science over whether or not climate change is happening. People still considering that are in the stone age.
Click to expand...
That statement is true.
But you earlier said there is no "evidence contradicting climate change", and that is NOT true.
There is plenty of contradiction, even within the consensus community.
Otherwise, there would not be "low confidence" in particular subjects related to the grand scheme of climate science.

And therein lies the real crux of contention; how much of it is your fault?

However, looking at it again, it's possible I misunderstood your intent with the original comment, and derived a meaning that was skewed.
 
T

TreeOfLiberty

Well-Known Member
Climate Change policies are about controlling people's lives and of course...MONEY.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/30/driessen-a-model-for-climate-change-fraud/?page=1



One of the most well known promoters of doing speaking engagements on climate change and telling people to change their energy consuming habits is Al Gore who doesn't practice what he preaches >


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Al-Gores-Hipocrisy-The-Climate-Crusader-Profits-from-Fossil-Fuels.html

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/mit-professor-global-warming-is-a-religion/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top