Wait . . . what? That makes no sense!

Global-warming-whose-to-blame


Daily Mail:

The IPCC, which has 195 member countries, adopted the report Friday after all-night talks at a meeting in Stockholm.

In its previous assessment, in 2007, the U.N.-sponsored panel said it was ‘very likely’ that global warming was due to human activity, particularly the CO2 emissions resulting from the burning of coal, oil and gas.

The change means that scientists have moved from being 90 per cent sure to 95 per cent – about the same degree of certainty they have that smoking kills.

‘At 90 percent it means there is a 10 percent probability that it’s not entirely correct,’ said Chris Field, Carnegie Institution scientist who is a leader in the IPCC but wasn’t involved in the report released Friday.

‘And now that’s 5 per cent. So it’s a doubling of our confidence. That’s actually a consequential change in our level of understanding.’
The report said global warming was due to human activity, particularly the CO2 emissions resulting from the burning of coal, oil and gas

The report said global warming was due to human activity, particularly the CO2 emissions resulting from the burning of coal, oil and gas

One of the most controversial subjects in the report was how to deal with what appears to be a slowdown in warming if you look at temperature data for the past 15 years.

Climate skeptics say this ‘hiatus’ casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change, even though the past decade was the warmest on record.

In the end, the IPCC made only a brief mention of the issue in the summary for policymakers, stressing that short-term records are sensitive to natural variability and don’t in general reflect long-term trends.


So these scientists are 95% certain that humans are the cause of global warming, and temperatures have been stable for the past 15 years?

If their theories are correct, shouldn’t global warming be accelerating?


About Myiq2xu

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Global Warming and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

69 Responses to Wait . . . what? That makes no sense!

  1. The Klown says:

    BTW – this was the title of that article:

    ‘No children, happy to go extinct’, tweets weatherman after grim climate-change report made him cry (now he’s considering a vasectomy)

    • …as well he should.

    • 1539days says:

      The guy who started The Weather Channel is disturbed about how NBC turned it into a global warming advocacy channel.

    • Man, where does one even begin to critique the bullshit in that article? The emotional and cliche introduction? The appeals to authority? The argument by number of 195 countries? Or the fact the scientists can’t do basic math? A doubling of confidence? Hardly. If you were 50% sure and then 100% sure, then you’d have a doubling of confidence. As it stands, they’re 5% more sure in the face of conflicting evidence. Hardly scientific.

  2. The Klown says:

    I am not a global warming skeptic. I am an all-round skeptic. When stuff doesn’t make sense to me I say so.

    • I start from the premise that the sky has never fallen yet, not once in 4.5 billion years, and likely never will. If someone is claiming it will, I have a 99.9999% confidence that they are full of shit.

  3. Mike says:

    The thing one must keep in mind is that to the alarmists’ way of thinking everybody else is stupid. Everybody else just doesn’t understand.

  4. wmcb says:

    I have yet to hear a one of them explain to me how the whole thing is falsifiable. I mean, if your models all said X would happen, and X is not happening, doesn’t that kind of invalidate the theory?

    Not to them. They just “adjust the model” and cruise on. So what set of data would falsify? 10 yrs with no warming? 15? 20? 25?

    • The Klown says:

      From what I know of Earth’s history, on multiple occasions this planet has been both hotter and colder than it is now, and that was long before humans appeared.

      • wmcb says:

        Yeah, I know. I don’t think we have a real handle on what drives climate over the long term. Keep studying. And stop trying to remake all of society when you really aren’t sure.

        The worst thing about all of this is the damage to science itself. If we go 10 more years and still no warming, there is going to be a decided distrust of the scientific community out there. And rightly so. Because they allowed themselves to be politicized.

        • DandyTIger says:

          Case in point, Popular Science that recently stopped allowing comments on their website. And they did that to “save science”. They were of course getting their share of crazies. But they were getting more and more people with doubts. Not always well informed people, but doubts. The numbers started to scare them. And that took time and energy to moderate. I think that’s a canary in the coal mine. Oh wait, no more coal mines. Anyway, that’s the tip of the iceberg. Oh wait. OK, that’s just the start.

        • Global Warming/ Climate Change is not a science. It’s a religion.

      • 1539days says:

        A skeptic of AGW (whose name I forgot, but I think he used to ask Gore uncomfortable questions at his movie screenings) wrote a book. One of the parts looked at the idea that higher temperatures were bad. For example, the Dark Ages coincided with a lower temperature period in history. When it got warmer, we got the Renaissance.

      • lildoggy4u says:

        Exactly. And since we have warming but temps have stabilized that makes it entirely possible that our burning of fossil fuels has saved us from an accelerated ice age.

  5. DandyTIger says:

    Try to come up with a new controversial theory in a science. Watch how you’re ridiculed. Watch how your funding shrinks to nothing. Watch how you can no longer get papers published. Sure, that can happen to kooks who have crazy theories with nothing behind them. But it also happens to scientists slowly and carefully doing good science to back up what they’re saying. For many breakthroughs, that’s the treatment you hear about.

    Here’s the deal. Scientists are social animals like the rest of us. They like to belong to a tribe. They want approval. They want funding. Right now, the consensus is with global warming. If you want recognition, papers published, funding, heck even a job, you are pro global warming. Oh, sorry, now it’s called “climate change” because, you know, it might be warming, it might be cooling. Either way it’s bad and we need lots of money to study it.

    I’m not saying they’re not right. They may be. But you should be skeptical. You should watch what happens when some data doesn’t fit their pre-conceived ideas. Right now we know they’re models are crap, and they know their models are crap. Notice how they deal with that. That’s where you separate the real scientists from the social club set.

    • 1539days says:

      Peer review = peer pressure.

      • DandyTIger says:

        Still needed. Without it you tend to get a lot of crap and had to find the good stuff in all the noise. But there needs to be a better check on social, tribal stuff.

    • driguana says:

      Yep….Immanuel Velikovsky was brutalized for his theories in his 1950 classic “Worlds in Collision” trying to explain anomalies in some planetary issues. Because he used “mythic” information he was viewed as unscientific. Pounding him so unmercifully even resulted in what was called “The Velikovsky Affair”. In many ways, science can be a shackle and an impediment to new learning.

  6. DandyTIger says:

    I’ve got to check who I’m following on Twitter. I just got email from Twitter recommending that I might want to follow Paris Hilton. That can’t be good.

  7. DandyTIger says:

    Try to tell a limousine liberal type you’re skeptical about global warming. Their heads will explode and they’ll end up calling your despicable names by the end. Saying your skeptical about something is basically saying you’re following the scientific method and have doubts, and have concerns about the recent embarrassing inaccuracies of the models used. To think otherwise would be following those ideas religiously.

    • elliesmom says:

      The thing that bothers me most about the whole thing is the way they are bastardizing the scientific method. I don’t know whether humans are affecting the rate of what is a natural earth process or not, and if we are, I don’t know if that’s a bad thing or not. I do know that when the model doesn’t fit the data that’s being collected, good scientists don’t massage the data to make it fit. There are too many people getting rich off of the alarmist point of view and not enough scientists with enough integrity to point it out.

  8. Lulu says:

    If the global atmospheric scientists had not been taken over and underwritten by the green and cap/trade huckster capitalists with big government influence they could back out of it and say we need to start over. But when you take their filthy lucre they own your ass and you cannot just say “my bad” because they won’t take no for an answer. I would suspect that a bunch of cash starved scientists saw a shell game to get the research money and gave the eco nuts what they wanted but the fraud of it is becoming more evident.

  9. DandyTIger says:

    Even under honest, normal conditions, you see the fads come and go. I know a number of physicists who watched the string theory fad come, watched their funding dry up, and just had to bide their time until the fad burned itself out. They’re back to getting funding again, to do real physics. But there were a lot of years of wasted effort on nonsense.

  10. wmcb says:

    Cuteness meter pegged so far past OMG CUTE!! that it’s busted. Done. Win.

    Little girl couldn’t sleep because of the fireworks, so her dad distracts her by singing together.

  11. DandyTIger says:

  12. DandyTIger says:

  13. DandyTIger says:

    As a US Chess Federation ranked member, I concur:

  14. wmcb says:

    House just voted for the 1 yr delay of Obamacare. 17 Democrats joined them, so this is a BIPARTISAN bill. Ball is in senate’s court now.

  15. wmcb says:

    More GOP need to learn to frame things the way this guy does.

  16. DandyTIger says:

    Go Stanford. That game is so lopsided that I almost feel bad for WSU. Almost.

  17. wmcb says:

    Just saw someone use the phrase “gacked up on a whoop chicken.” I don’t even know what that means, but I’m still stealing it. Because awesome.

  18. wmcb says:

Comments are closed.