4 ms·

Bear in mind the actuality has tended to come far faster than the IPCC predictions. The IPCC, being a UN body of government appointed scientists, economists etc

Bear in mind the actuality has tended to come far faster than the IPCC predictions. The IPCC, being a UN body of government appointed scientists, economists etc, consistently take an overly conservative view. There's been criticism of this over the years. From seven years ago: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-unde... IPCC includes representatives from the oil and coal states, and those reports require unanimity. What gets published tends to the blandest interpretation possible so that the oil states, coal exporters and the couple of countries pretending it isn't happening can agree too. Saudi has tried to significantly tone down reports to protect their oil interests to name but one. It's far from the sole incident: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/15/ipcc-un-climate-reports-diluted-protect-fossil-fuel-interests https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/m...

repolfx 7y ago
The IPCC, being a UN body of government appointed scientists, economists etc, consistently take an overly conservative view No, IPCC predictions have been wrong/over-aggressive in the past. Their 1990 long range predictions can be compared against the present now and are 40% out: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/the-ipcc-1990-far-predictions-were-wrong/ http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/the-ipcc-1990-far-predictio... People have a tendency to cherry pick predictions that worked out or which assert a requirement for even more panic, whilst ignoring predictions that didn't work out (of which there are many). Your argument is basically unfalsifiable: scientists must be listened to because they all agree (itself a dubious or false claim), but the internationally agreed consensus must not be listened to because it's "bland" and influenced by people who might disagree (but who in the end endorsed the report anyway). It appears that evidence is only accepted as legitimate if it's more alarming than past evidence: how could this argument ever ramp itself down? And how can the argument both be argument by authority whilst simultaneously attacking the credibility of those authorities?
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  That seems to be exactly what you are doing -- one cherry picked alleged mistake at your link as against 8 instances of under-estimate in that old Scientific American article, and the instances picked up by this NYT piece. A link I might add that is a highly dubious source[1] who is already demonstrably wrong on extent of current warming, and has written for the Heartland Institute[1][2], a bunch of extremist idiots -- notably with no scientific credentials -- who think CATO too moderate. All you need to know is revealed by their continued denial, even today, of the link between tobacco and health[3]. Her about page quotes proudly Matt Ridley and James Delingpole - two outright and consistent liars on climate and multiple other topics over decades. Both well known UK climate deniers who you absolutely don't want to be lauded by if you want a shred of credibility. Ridley, the man who brought down a bank (Northern Rock) in 08, then claimed the answer would have been less regulation and he was in no way to blame - the inquiries found him to blame and specifically criticised him for bringing Britain and British banking into disrepute. So at the very least I would want independent confirmation from a reputable source that her outlying view of climate sensitivity and the IPCC's alleged error is even accurate. She can't even quote SkepticalScience accurately or honestly, but cherry picks part of what they wrote to try and paint them incorrectly as fools. I'm not suggesting we do not listen to the IPCC either, just that they have on past performance been found to be consistently conservative in their estimates. That's borne out by their structure, their errors of omission, and that they give little to no consideration to tipping points and non-linear impacts -- which is understandable given that some are unknown and none are amenable to modelling. Both issues highlighted in that Scientific American piece. Put another way IPCC reports are the least impact we can probably expect, which the data is bearing out as years pass. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#Tobacco_regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#Tobacc...
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Without getting into who is a crank and who isn’t, I think the following point from the post you’re replying to really gets to the heart of my consternation: > And how can the argument both be argument by authority whilst simultaneously attacking the credibility of those authorities? If people are supposed to believe the IPCC because it’s a consensus statement, how can you then ask them to then assume the IPCC is wrong? Who is the scientific authority we’re supposed to trust more than the IPCC? Your assertion that the IPCC “gives too little consideration to tipping points” highlights the issue. The IPCC seems to have considered runaway greenhouse gas effects and rejected them as “unlikely.” Why should we disregard those conclusions?

repolfx 7y ago

The IPCC, being a UN body of government appointed scientists, economists etc, consistently take an overly conservative view No, IPCC predictions have been wrong/over-aggressive in the past. Their 1990 long range predictions can be compared against the present now and are 40% out: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/the-ipcc-1990-far-predictions-were-wrong/ http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/the-ipcc-1990-far-predictio... People have a tendency to cherry pick predictions that worked out or which assert a requirement for even more panic, whilst ignoring predictions that didn't work out (of which there are many). Your argument is basically unfalsifiable: scientists must be listened to because they all agree (itself a dubious or false claim), but the internationally agreed consensus must not be listened to because it's "bland" and influenced by people who might disagree (but who in the end endorsed the report anyway). It appears that evidence is only accepted as legitimate if it's more alarming than past evidence: how could this argument ever ramp itself down? And how can the argument both be argument by authority whilst simultaneously attacking the credibility of those authorities?

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
That seems to be exactly what you are doing -- one cherry picked alleged mistake at your link as against 8 instances of under-estimate in that old Scientific American article, and the instances picked up by this NYT piece. A link I might add that is a highly dubious source[1] who is already demonstrably wrong on extent of current warming, and has written for the Heartland Institute[1][2], a bunch of extremist idiots -- notably with no scientific credentials -- who think CATO too moderate. All you need to know is revealed by their continued denial, even today, of the link between tobacco and health[3]. Her about page quotes proudly Matt Ridley and James Delingpole - two outright and consistent liars on climate and multiple other topics over decades. Both well known UK climate deniers who you absolutely don't want to be lauded by if you want a shred of credibility. Ridley, the man who brought down a bank (Northern Rock) in 08, then claimed the answer would have been less regulation and he was in no way to blame - the inquiries found him to blame and specifically criticised him for bringing Britain and British banking into disrepute. So at the very least I would want independent confirmation from a reputable source that her outlying view of climate sensitivity and the IPCC's alleged error is even accurate. She can't even quote SkepticalScience accurately or honestly, but cherry picks part of what they wrote to try and paint them incorrectly as fools. I'm not suggesting we do not listen to the IPCC either, just that they have on past performance been found to be consistently conservative in their estimates. That's borne out by their structure, their errors of omission, and that they give little to no consideration to tipping points and non-linear impacts -- which is understandable given that some are unknown and none are amenable to modelling. Both issues highlighted in that Scientific American piece. Put another way IPCC reports are the least impact we can probably expect, which the data is bearing out as years pass. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#Tobacco_regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#Tobacc...
- rayiner 7y ago
  Without getting into who is a crank and who isn’t, I think the following point from the post you’re replying to really gets to the heart of my consternation: > And how can the argument both be argument by authority whilst simultaneously attacking the credibility of those authorities? If people are supposed to believe the IPCC because it’s a consensus statement, how can you then ask them to then assume the IPCC is wrong? Who is the scientific authority we’re supposed to trust more than the IPCC? Your assertion that the IPCC “gives too little consideration to tipping points” highlights the issue. The IPCC seems to have considered runaway greenhouse gas effects and rejected them as “unlikely.” Why should we disregard those conclusions?