5 ms·

The IPCC says: "It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010

by sien 10y ago

The IPCC says: "It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." That is very different from 95% of climate scientists think that the threat is dire. The IPCC says that perhaps 51% of the increase in temperature is due to greenhouse gasses AND other anthropogenic forcings, you're saying something quite different. That is the consensus.

sdenton4 10y ago
Those are statements about the CAUSE of global warming, which doesn't say much about its effects (which are widely agreed to be dire). Knowing that 50 percent is anthropogenic means that we can reasonably look for anthropogenic solutions. Though so far game theory has outweighed rationality...
- sien 10y ago
  The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group II has concluded that global warming of 2.5˚C would cost the equivalent to losing between 0.2-2.0% of annual income. Again, the actual consensus on damage is lower than what people imagine and scenarios propagated in grey literature by Environmental organisations.
  - stouset 10y ago
    That cost is primarily borne by those in undeveloped regions, where 0.2-2.0% of average global annual income can easily equal >= 100% of local income. Further, from the report (emphasis theirs): > It is very likely that globally aggregated figures underestimate the damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable impacts. It is virtually certain that aggregate estimates of costs mask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions, countries and populations. It's extremely disingenuous to provide the 0.2-2.0% figure without the massive footnote that this is a stark underestimate.
    - sien 10y ago
      Also the benefit of electricity is greatest when brought to places with low levels of development.
niels_olson 10y ago
stouset didn't cite the IPCC. While that admits the possiblity that they implicitly referred to the IPCC, there are many other sources of variables in the climate debate that are in the 95% range. The mere fact that one is 95% does not exclude the possiblity that others are 95%. Thus the most likely situation here is that you constructed a strawman in your mind, and implicitly argued against it.
karmelapple 10y ago
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." From http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
- dmfdmf 10y ago
  "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists funded by the government agree: The government should fund more climate research" FTFY. I am joking but I think there is a serious credibility issue here. I forget who but some famous science researcher (not in climate research) once said that the conclusion of every research paper is, more funding is needed. How does that institutionalized mindset impact objectivity and who is paying for most of the research today? As I mentioned this is not an overt policy or strategy but just the way things work out once the government takes over funding science research. Read Rand on "The Establishing of the Establishment" for a clear discussion of how it works insidiously to corrupt even an honest man. If you saw my reply to stouset then imagine that I tried to have a career in climate research. If you aren't "all in" on the validity of the models you don't get jobs, you don't get published and you don't have a career. And that's just questioning the validity of the models not even questioning that global warming is caused by man. Moreover, the qualifier "peer-reviewed" is one of the standards being undercut by government funded science. If all your peers have to "go along to get along" then the independence of their review has to be questioned. There was the email leaks a few years back where it was revealed that climate researchers were publicly telling other researchers who disagreed with the methods or conclusions to publish in peer-reviewed journals if they wanted to be heard. But privately, through back channels and political pull, they got papers spiked and opponents blackballed and threatened boycotts of journals that published any "anti" papers. This is not science, it is politics.
  - stouset 10y ago
    > If you saw my reply to stouset then imagine that I tried to have a career in climate research. If you aren't "all in" on the validity of the models you don't get jobs, you don't get published and you don't have a career. And that's just questioning the validity of the models not even questioning that global warming is caused by man. This sort of problem has historically corrected itself[1]. Unfortunately for us, with regard to the climate, the numbers keep "correcting" themself in the wrong direction. [1]: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

by sien 10y ago

sdenton4 10y ago

Those are statements about the CAUSE of global warming, which doesn't say much about its effects (which are widely agreed to be dire). Knowing that 50 percent is anthropogenic means that we can reasonably look for anthropogenic solutions. Though so far game theory has outweighed rationality...

sien 10y ago
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group II has concluded that global warming of 2.5˚C would cost the equivalent to losing between 0.2-2.0% of annual income. Again, the actual consensus on damage is lower than what people imagine and scenarios propagated in grey literature by Environmental organisations.
- stouset 10y ago
  That cost is primarily borne by those in undeveloped regions, where 0.2-2.0% of average global annual income can easily equal >= 100% of local income. Further, from the report (emphasis theirs): > It is very likely that globally aggregated figures underestimate the damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable impacts. It is virtually certain that aggregate estimates of costs mask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions, countries and populations. It's extremely disingenuous to provide the 0.2-2.0% figure without the massive footnote that this is a stark underestimate.
  - sien 10y ago
    Also the benefit of electricity is greatest when brought to places with low levels of development.

niels_olson 10y ago

stouset didn't cite the IPCC. While that admits the possiblity that they implicitly referred to the IPCC, there are many other sources of variables in the climate debate that are in the 95% range. The mere fact that one is 95% does not exclude the possiblity that others are 95%. Thus the most likely situation here is that you constructed a strawman in your mind, and implicitly argued against it.

karmelapple 10y ago

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." From http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

dmfdmf 10y ago
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists funded by the government agree: The government should fund more climate research" FTFY. I am joking but I think there is a serious credibility issue here. I forget who but some famous science researcher (not in climate research) once said that the conclusion of every research paper is, more funding is needed. How does that institutionalized mindset impact objectivity and who is paying for most of the research today? As I mentioned this is not an overt policy or strategy but just the way things work out once the government takes over funding science research. Read Rand on "The Establishing of the Establishment" for a clear discussion of how it works insidiously to corrupt even an honest man. If you saw my reply to stouset then imagine that I tried to have a career in climate research. If you aren't "all in" on the validity of the models you don't get jobs, you don't get published and you don't have a career. And that's just questioning the validity of the models not even questioning that global warming is caused by man. Moreover, the qualifier "peer-reviewed" is one of the standards being undercut by government funded science. If all your peers have to "go along to get along" then the independence of their review has to be questioned. There was the email leaks a few years back where it was revealed that climate researchers were publicly telling other researchers who disagreed with the methods or conclusions to publish in peer-reviewed journals if they wanted to be heard. But privately, through back channels and political pull, they got papers spiked and opponents blackballed and threatened boycotts of journals that published any "anti" papers. This is not science, it is politics.
- stouset 10y ago
  > If you saw my reply to stouset then imagine that I tried to have a career in climate research. If you aren't "all in" on the validity of the models you don't get jobs, you don't get published and you don't have a career. And that's just questioning the validity of the models not even questioning that global warming is caused by man. This sort of problem has historically corrected itself[1]. Unfortunately for us, with regard to the climate, the numbers keep "correcting" themself in the wrong direction. [1]: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm