Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
  • 20
We got climate change wrong says IPCC - global warming estimates revised down; Global temperatures less sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide than previously thought
Topic Started: 16 Sep 2013, 01:42 PM (15,937 Views)
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

dave
6 Nov 2013, 05:26 PM
the overwhelming majority of scientists (there is over a 90% majority consensus)
Urban myth - there is no consensus... http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/10723-climate-scientists-consensus-based-on-a-myth
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
dave
Default APF Avatar
Platinum Member
Pig Iron
6 Nov 2013, 05:28 PM
so you are saying they aren't? you don't think we should factor in the human element in decision making in this case, but if it's climate we should instantly agree it must be the big bad humans doing it?
I agree humans are involved in all scientific findings and so these will always be flaws.
The same can be said for any data thats collected and studied.
You don't take RP trends and predictions for gospel do you?
You look at afew data sets, you form an aggregate of data in your head and then you make your call.
Now, well over 90% of the data found by scientists regarding this issue point to the same conclusion.
The earth is getting warmer and we are causing it.
When the findings are so heavily slanted in one direction, you really should consider the human elements involved in the data that doesn't correlate with the majority of scientific research.
In almost all of the studies where alternative conclusions about global warming are drawn, they are ultimately found to be funded by big oil.

Humans can't really afford to gamble on the the bulk of scientists being wrong.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

dave
6 Nov 2013, 05:43 PM
Humans can't really afford to gamble on the the bulk of scientists being wrong
The bulk of scientists are unable to say how much influence humans have on the climate.
Quote:
 
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/10723-climate-scientists-consensus-based-on-a-myth

The two principle questions in the poll, the results of which monopolized media coverage, were:

Q1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

Q2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” The possible answers were, “Yes”, “No”, and “I’m not sure.”

In later queries, survey respondents were given the opportunity to enter text in response to, for example, question 3c:

“What makes you unsure if human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing global mean temperatures?”

Not surprisingly, many experts took the opportunity to thoroughly dismantle the obvious problems in these questions. For example, at least 34 scientists objected to the use of the word “significant” when applied in this context. Here are some samples (bolding added to most important comments. An unedited listing of the 34 scientists’ objections to the use of this word may be seen here on the ICSC Website):

“’Significant’ is undefined, and to achieve the statistical parameters of sigificance is much of what the debates are about…The bigger question is, ‘How much [warming] does human activity add?’”
“I assume you mean ‘substantial’ rather than statistically ‘significant’… It is possible that we have provided 5-10% of the change, but I am not sure if that is what you would define as ‘substantial.’ “I believe human activity is a contributing factor, it’s the term ‘significant’ I’m unsure about.”
“I do not know what you mean by significant. I believe humans are affecting the climate, I am not sure how and to what level.”
“I don’ know how to distinguish the effect of human activity from other controls, and I don’t know how you define ‘significant’.”
“I think human activity is a significant component, but I do not know if it is 10%, 25%, 50% or more.“
“I have no doubt that it is a factor, and part of my answer relates to the vagueness of the word ‘significantly’. Certainly natural variability is significant. I don’t think we are yet able to ease out the fraction of warming that is anthropogenic from the fraction that is natural…”
“It depends on your definition of ‘significant. Is human activity a factor? Yes.”
“Personally I have no doubt that human activity is a contributing factor to increased average MGT, but I cannot evaluate unquantified, qualitative statements like ‘major,’ ‘important,’ or ‘significant’ and disapprove of their use in scientific discussions/conclusions.”
“Significant is a loaded term. Human activity has contributed to the increase in temperature, but how much has this activity impacted the global mean temperature?”
“Significant’ is a relative term. To me, significant means that most of the changing temperature would be attributable to human activity. I’m not sure that can be demonstrated.”
“‘Significant’ is a word that is open to multiple interpretations. Significant is the key word. it has made a difference, but I am not sure if it is a significant difference or just adding to a natural change in temperatures.”
“That the humans are a contributing factor is clear, as to ‘significant’ is debatable.”
“I believe human activity is likely doing something, but I hesitate to say it is ‘significant’.”
“The key word is significant. There have been cyclic warm and cold periods since man has been on earth. The last 10 years the mean temperature has been rather flat, and we have a downward spike this winter. I’m not sure of all the factors going on…”
“The term significant is somewhat ambiguous particularly in comparison to climate changes throughout geologic history.“
“The use of the word significant makes me unsure. I know that climate fluctuations are normal, and I’m not convinced that humans are making current temperature changes significantly different.”
“The way that you phrased the question implies that human activity has to be a significant contributor. I think that the data indicates we are contributors but I’m not sure that we understand the background cycles/changes well enough to know how small or how huge our impacts are.“
“Does ‘significant’ mean perceptible or outside the ‘normal range’ of observations?…”
“what do you mean by significant? Statistically? A player in the total rise? sure we are! How much? I am not sure.“
“What is meant by significant? A major contribution, yes, but what is human activity compared with increased solar activity. So far, it is lost in the statistical models.“
“Your use of the word ‘significant’. It seems clear that human activity has caused an increase in CO2 levels. That, in theory, might have caused an increase in global temperature. However, did it? If so, was it the only cause? If it was a cause, was it a significant cause?”
“without defining what is meant by significant, you may get a wide range of responses that agree… ”
“Q2 then asks if I think that humans are “a significant” contributor to warming temperatures, but I can only answer yes or no. I happen to think that we are one among many contributing factors, so I answered yes, but I couldn’t explain this. … I had to stop the survey at this point because it was forcing me to answer queries about why I think they are… ”
“I have attempted to take your survey, but am dismayed at how it is constructed…”
“I have answered some questions from your survey and some I have not answered because they are vague…”
“Just filled out your survey and I have a suggestion. You need a question that asks to what degree we think human activity has influenced climate…”

… and so it continues throughout Zimmerman’s thesis appendices.
Edited by Shadow, 6 Nov 2013, 05:53 PM.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
dave
Default APF Avatar
Platinum Member
Shadow
6 Nov 2013, 05:38 PM
Theres plenty of money for any scientists willing to poke holes in the broad scientific consensus achieved by by man-made climate change.
The ICSC exists because they receive anonymous 'donations'.
To the great credit of the scientific community, there are only four 'scientists' in the ICSC.
If you read the content of their 'findings' you'll find that, not unlike yourself, they are largely focused on semantics.
Edited by dave, 6 Nov 2013, 08:09 PM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Nelson
Member Avatar


Kulganis
6 Nov 2013, 04:33 PM
No, see I don't accept Facebook as a reliable source of information any more than I do Wikipedia. If the image referenced its originating source, I may have, but it doesn't, I can make pretty pictures on GIMP say anything I want too.
TWIT !!!!!! The link is below the image and the link contains more links. You blind as well? DUMMY !!!!

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/near-term-ar5/


Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Kulganis
Member Avatar


Nelson
6 Nov 2013, 06:15 PM
TWIT !!!!!! The link is below the image and the link contains more links. You blind as well? DUMMY !!!!

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/near-term-ar5/

Had you used that link in the first place, I would have read it, Facebook is still not a source as far as I'm concerned.
I also note that he doesn't try to claim that climate change isn't happening, nor that humans aren't significantly involved.

Also, the observations are within the range of prediction in the models used, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.
Edited by Kulganis, 6 Nov 2013, 06:51 PM.
"If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear." - Gene Roddenberry

"Balloon animals are a great way to teach children that the things they love dearly, may spontaneously explode" -- Lee Camp
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Andrew Judd
Default APF Avatar


Kulganis
6 Nov 2013, 06:43 PM
Had you used that link in the first place, I would have read it, Facebook is still not a source as far as I'm concerned.
I also note that he doesn't try to claim that climate change isn't happening, nor that humans aren't significantly involved.

Also, the observations are within the range of prediction in the models used, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.
Anybody who thinks the climate does not change can be dismissed as nuts.

Yes, there can be no doubt in my mind that humans must be influencing the climate. How can you green the deserts of the world, as well as our suburbs and have extra water vapour all over those areas *and* their surrounding areas without making a difference?
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Kulganis
Member Avatar


The real issue isn't that humans are causing unsustainable climate change, but that we can't actually stop it, we can only mitigate the effects on us.

It's not about saving the planet, it will continue on, even if it's a lifeless rock, it doesn't care.

It's about saving ourselves from significant changes to our environment, at the moment, the only one we have.

Most of the arguments against climate change aren't actually against climate change, but against the amount of money we're collectively spending to mitigate the effects.
"If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear." - Gene Roddenberry

"Balloon animals are a great way to teach children that the things they love dearly, may spontaneously explode" -- Lee Camp
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Andrew Judd
Default APF Avatar


Kulganis
6 Nov 2013, 07:09 PM
The real issue isn't that humans are causing unsustainable climate change, but that we can't actually stop it, we can only mitigate the effects on us.

It's not about saving the planet, it will continue on, even if it's a lifeless rock, it doesn't care.

It's about saving ourselves from significant changes to our environment, at the moment, the only one we have.

Most of the arguments against climate change aren't actually against climate change, but against the amount of money we're collectively spending to mitigate the effects.
As I already said, only a nutter is not going to believe the climate changes.

There is zero evidence to suggest that anything unsustainable is happening right now. In the past, life on Earth was perfectly fine with far higher levels of atmospheric CO2.

A model depends upon your own assumptions. Only reality can reveal your errors. Only a fool builds a modeled aeroplane and gets into it and leaves the ground a few feet before coming back to the ground and checking the results.

The whole 'modelled reality without testing' story is scientifically bogus. The modellers have no idea if they are predicting the future or just curve fitting the past.
Edited by Andrew Judd, 6 Nov 2013, 07:21 PM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Kulganis
6 Nov 2013, 07:09 PM
Most of the arguments against climate change aren't actually against climate change, but against the amount of money we're collectively spending to mitigate the effects.
Nobody argues that the climate doesn't change. The only argument is about the degree to which humans influence that change. My concern is that we could end up spending vast sums of money and resources trying to fix a problem that may not exist, or that even if it does exist, one that we may not be able to influence. We can't prevent the climate from changing and we don't know how much impact we are having on climate change. Regardless of how much money we spend on it, we will never know whether any of that money had any impact whatsoever.

Say in 100 years time we've spent trillions of dollars and the global temperature has risen by 1 degree. How much would it have risen by if we had spent zero dollars? 1.01 degrees? There's no way of knowing. There are more important things to spend money and resources on. Climate change is inevitable. If money must be spent then it should be spent on ways to adapt to the inevitable climate change, not on a futile attempt to prevent it from happening.
Edited by Shadow, 6 Nov 2013, 07:28 PM.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
3 users reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
  • 20



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy