lee wrote on Dec 25
th, 2021 at 11:25am:
So - so far you have shown a scientist who said if CO2 went up 10% New York would drown. The science is settled right? So what did oil companies know that scientists didn't?
Pass, you know my thoughts on CO2 and AGW.
Quote:The IPCC is not a body of scientists. It is an InterGOVERNMENTAL body. The Science must be changed if it disagrees with with the Summary for Policy Makers.
What does the underlined mean? You can't change scientific knowledge to make it conform with policy. (But remember, I'm agnostic about AGW, so I'll steer clear of any "disagreement").
Quote:"P54/WGI-14 - Changes to the underlying scientific-technical assessment to ensure consistency with the approved SPM"
Why you would think the IPCC is a scientific organisation is beyond belief. You have the religious fervour about you. CCP, IPCC, MMT.
Er...I already noted I'm agnostic re AGW...the opposite of "religious fervour".... And your conflation of CCP, IPCC, and MMT is inadmissible in logic (passionate attachment in one field doesn't mean religious fervour in another.
Quote:And apparently you don't understand consensus is not the same as being right.
In AGW? Boring (for me, that is.....)
Quote:No. But your concern is addressed above.
Wrongly, as shown above.
Quote:No. First a theory. Then a check to see if it meets known facts, scepticism is from 'ground zero'. Even the scientists who make the discovery should be sceptical.
Too narrow. Scientific discovery can be made by accident, serendipity, or motivated by search in order to enable desired outcomes if possible, or merely to discover the workings of the world for its own sake. So I ask again, is the theory of evolution established scientific truth?
Quote:Richard Feynman again - “Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
That's a very small, though indispensable, aspect of science.
And as for AGW, I don't care all that much....
Quote:Poor petal. CO2 theory is correct. All things staying equal. However we know all things don't stay equal. The disagreement is about how much. Some say it is beneficial all the way through to catastrophe now. But the science is settled right? You are such a numpty
Oh dear, you are the one claiming the science is settled, not me....
And since some are claiming the science is settled in exactly the opposite direction to you, I reckon it might be a sensible bet to exit filthy fossils.
Quote:Zeke Hausfather is a scientist on the warming side.
"RCP8.5 was intended to explore an unlikely high-risk future2. But it has been widely used by some experts, policymakers and the media as something else entirely: as a likely ‘business as usual’ outcome. A sizeable portion of the literature on climate impacts refers to RCP8.5 as business as usual, implying that it is probable in the absence of stringent climate mitigation. The media then often amplifies this message, sometimes without communicating the nuances. This results in further confusion regarding probable emissions outcomes, because many climate researchers are not familiar with the details of these scenarios in the energy-modelling literature.
This is particularly problematic when the worst-case scenario is contrasted with the most optimistic one, especially in high-profile scholarly work. This includes studies by the IPCC, such as AR5 and last year’s special report on the impact of climate change on the ocean and cryosphere4. The focus becomes the extremes, rather than the multitude of more likely pathways in between.
Happily — and that’s a word we climatologists rarely get to use — the world imagined in
RCP8.5 is one that, in our view, becomes increasingly implausible with every passing year5. Emission pathways to get to RCP8.5 generally require an unprecedented fivefold increase in coal use by the end of the century, an amount larger than some estimates of recoverable coal reserves6. It is thought that global coal use peaked in 2013, and although increases are still possible, many energy forecasts expect it to flatline over the next few decades7.
Furthermore, the falling cost of clean energy sources is a trend that is unlikely to reverse, even in the absence of new climate policies7."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3So calm ya tits.
Where did you get the impression I am panicking along the lines of the 'extinction rebellion' people? But I certainly agree with the last sentence (underlined); indeed I want it to happen ASAP, regardless of climate.
Quote:Poor petal. So you don't trust people. Who Knew?
There's a world of difference between "people" and Conservative ideologues directly responsible for our broken world.
Quote:Oh dear, a survey conducted by a major investment bank with $trillions in the fossil industry? ....like putting a fox in charge of the hen-house.
Forum
Pages: 
