7 ms·
I would downvote you, but I want people to see this response: http://royalsociety.org/The-Science-of-Climate-Change-report/ http://royalsociety.org/The-Science
by Robin_Message 16y ago
I would downvote you, but I want people to see this response:
http://royalsociety.org/The-Science-of-Climate-Change-report/ http://royalsociety.org/The-Science-of-Climate-Change-report...
Yes, that's right, the Royal Society, which, for those of you who are unfamiliar with science, is the oldest scientific organisation in the world, agrees with the IPCC reports, which I would cite as the secondary scientific evidence. For the primary evidence, just read all the articles cited by the IPCC.
What weighty scientific evidence points against global warming? Or is "real science" being suppressed?
- anigbrowl 16y agoDoubtless they're just one of the oldest parts of the one world government conspiracy...
- rimantas 16y agoSo Royal Society agrees that Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035?
- Robin_Message 16y agoLet's be clear what you are talking about here: In section 10.6.2 of the 2007 "Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability" IPCC report, someone put in an incorrect figure for glacier melting. That's one mistake, after years of scrutiny, in the IPCC report that talks about the impact of climate change, which is not even the report that shows climate change is real. To imply you think that undermines the case for climate change beggars belief. Now, you're not wrong in saying that quoting the WWF in a scientific report seems to be a bit of a screw-up. It shouldn't have happened, and the reports need to be reviewed more carefully to stop it happening again — except careful review did find this mistake, it was corrected, and the rest of the report, all 976 pages, still stands. Additionally, as I alluded to above, this is not the "The Physical Science Basis" of climate change report, which weighs in at 996 pages and no-one to my knowledge has found any mistakes even as bad as the glacier example. You cannot disregard that particular IPCC report for one mistake; that would be absurd. And even if the whole of the "Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability" was hogwash, you still cannot claim climate change is not happening, as it is the "The Physical Science Basis" that gives (funnily enough) the scientific basis to climate change. Bringing up the Himalayan glaciers shows a basic misunderstanding of the IPCC process, the scientific process and the magnitude of the error compared to the weight of scientific evidence for climate change. Please provide a peer-reviewed, or even non-peer reviewed, paper showing mistakes in the accepted literature and we'll talk.
- rimantas 16y agoSo this was the one and only mistake on IPCC part? Even if I misunderstand IPCC process looks like they are not happy with it themselves: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100616/full/news.2010.302.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100616/full/news.2010.302.ht...
- Robin_Message 16y agoYou are disagreeing with an incidental comment that is not even the thrust of my argument on a FUD basis, but anyway. That article in Nature interviewed some people associated with the process who expressed not one jot of disbelief in the report. They wished the mistake hadn't happened, and had been caught sooner, and suggested ways to reduce mistakes in the future, but no-one thinks that mistake invalidates the report or the process. I'll say it differently — if that's the biggest mistake you can find in the IPCC report (and given how much hand-wringing and complaining about it there has been, it's highly likely it was the biggest mistake), then you either have to accept climate change is real, or find a bigger mistake. I really don't know why I'm arguing with you. Of course the IPCC regret the mistake. But they haven't all gone to commit seppuku over it. Refute the scientific basis report.
- rimantas 16y agoI am not talking about beliefs there. The main point why discussion about the need of change started is this: > "To me the fundamental problem was that when the error > was found it was handled in a totally and utterly > atrocious manner<…>". IPCC is a political organization, not scientific.