3 ms·
Well, he used the same numbers that the IPCC FAR report's "Policymaker's Summary" section chose to use, which repeatedly uses the term "is predicted" (admittedl
by Torgo 14y ago
Well, he used the same numbers that the IPCC FAR report's "Policymaker's Summary" section chose to use, which repeatedly uses the term "is predicted" (admittedly, qualified with "based on current model results" or specific scenarios.) The explicit purpose of that section was to suggest possible policy options based on a set of long-term events stated to be found _with certainty_ (their words) by the working group that were going to occur.
Let's say that I am a "policymaker" and not a climate scientist, and I sensibly choose to defer to experts how I should plan for any potential climate change. That's the section that was written specifically to me for that purpose, by the working group--with the same numbers that this guy quotes.
- bunderbunder 14y agoThose cases where the BaU figures are used are disclaimed with the qualifier, "Under the Business-as-Usual scenario", and the ensuing discussion is pretty clearly intended as an exposition on how we should not have wanted to mimic the BaU scenario because, as the model projections for that scenario indicate, there was compelling reason to believe that the consequences would have been bad. Again, cherry-picking things out of context does not a compelling argument make. Unless the people you're trying to compel can be trusted to not check your sources too carefully. And of course the corollary to that is, if the topic is controversial you should always thoroughly fact-check your sources. (Speaking of, I couldn't find the phrase "with certainty" in either of the three FAR policymakers summaries. . . perhaps you meant "with confidence"? Regardless, it's skirting the edge of dishonesty to use the phrase "their words" to describe something that isn't their words.)