The Cellar - View Single Post

Undertoad · 03-17-2015, 07:16 PM

Oh now I get it; sorry, being dense;

Who are the scientists? The population of all scientists.

What do they say? They agree with IPCC 2001.

What is overwhelmingly? Implied, because there aren't many of the population of all scientsts on the disagreement page in Wikipedia.

Also, according to Wikipedia, when scientific organizations make statements, they never make a statement against AGW. Okay, would such a statement require a simple majority vote, or... an overwhelming majority vote?

HM, assuming this was any other topic, would you be convinced? I am not convinced.

More specific quibbles:
We're out of sync already... what I was thinking by "AGW" is this:

1) everything we got says it got 0.6 degrees C warmer in the last 134 years
2) mankind's introduction of some gases is definitely responsible for this

(And that's what I "roughly speaking" believe.)

But what the 2001 IPCC statement says is this:

1) everything we got says it got 0.6 degrees C warmer in the last 120 years, and most of that in the last few decades
2) mankind's introduction of CO2 and methane are almost definitely responsible for this
3) between 1990 and 2100, global temp will rise between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees C

I think we can resolve our differences on #1 and 2. What do you think about #3. Shall we just throw it out?

The IPCC did. In 2013 their predictions section, a far cry from the front page already, contains this item:

The global surface temperature increase by the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5 °C relative to the 1850 to 1900 period

Likely to = 66-90% probability.

You know why they walked back. Let's not say the word.

So, roughly speaking, the 2013 IPCC statement does not agree with the scientific consensus, as stated in the 2001 IPCC statement.

I suppose we could add them to the list of deniers. But in some sense of all this, fuck the IPCC. It's a group of people, chosen in a political manner, by a political organization, and working by committee. They are building political consensus, not scientific consensus.

03-17-2015, 07:16 PM	#63
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Oh now I get it; sorry, being dense; Who are the scientists? The population of all scientists. What do they say? They agree with IPCC 2001. What is overwhelmingly? Implied, because there aren't many of the population of all scientsts on the disagreement page in Wikipedia. Also, according to Wikipedia, when scientific organizations make statements, they never make a statement against AGW. Okay, would such a statement require a simple majority vote, or... an overwhelming majority vote? HM, assuming this was any other topic, would you be convinced? I am not convinced. More specific quibbles: We're out of sync already... what I was thinking by "AGW" is this: 1) everything we got says it got 0.6 degrees C warmer in the last 134 years 2) mankind's introduction of some gases is definitely responsible for this (And that's what I "roughly speaking" believe.) But what the 2001 IPCC statement says is this: 1) everything we got says it got 0.6 degrees C warmer in the last 120 years, and most of that in the last few decades 2) mankind's introduction of CO2 and methane are almost definitely responsible for this 3) between 1990 and 2100, global temp will rise between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees C I think we can resolve our differences on #1 and 2. What do you think about #3. Shall we just throw it out? The IPCC did. In 2013 their predictions section, a far cry from the front page already, contains this item: The global surface temperature increase by the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5 °C relative to the 1850 to 1900 period Likely to = 66-90% probability. You know why they walked back. Let's not say the word. So, roughly speaking, the 2013 IPCC statement does not agree with the scientific consensus, as stated in the 2001 IPCC statement. I suppose we could add them to the list of deniers. But in some sense of all this, fuck the IPCC. It's a group of people, chosen in a political manner, by a political organization, and working by committee. They are building political consensus, not scientific consensus.