We Were Wrong, Climate Scientists Concede

Oops, I may have been repeating misinformation. I can not verify my claim above, Sorry. Will keep looking for now, but I was wrong. I read it at Climate etc, which I trust greatly, but it was in the comments. Might have been someone making it up.
 
Rune said:
Sure Tom, one article from some obscure college no one has ever heard of proves....nothing.
Thanks...for ....nothing
Click to expand...

There is a reason jpp climate deniers always link to some obscure website no one has ever heard of, but not to the actual publication.

In the actual publication, the authors are unequivocal and unambiguous that global warming and human CO2 emissions are closely connected, and they articulate the urgency for mitigation and reductions of GHG emissions.

Computer models and data need to be constantly updated and refined as science progress. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of science understands that. But, word games do not change a single thing about the underlying science, and the long term risk to the planet.


Nature Geoscience | Article

Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C

"The Paris Agreement has opened debate on whether limiting warming to 1.5 °C is compatible with current emission pledges and warming of about 0.9 °C from the mid-nineteenth century to the present decade.

....Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/...oxtrotcallback=true#supplementary-information
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
There is a reason jpp climate deniers always link to some obscure website no one has ever heard of, but not to the actual publication.

In the actual publication, the authors are unequivocal and unambiguous that global warming and human CO2 emissions are closely connected, and they articulate the urgency for mitigation and reductions of GHG emissions.

Computer models and data need to be constantly updated and refined as science progress. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of science understands that. But, word games do not change a single thing about the underlying science, and the long term risk to the planet.
Click to expand...

Seriously, why are you such an arsehole? Nobody is denying that CO2 has a climate forcing effect, I guess with your Russian background rewriting history just comes as second nature to you.

The world has warmed more slowly than had been predicted by computer models, which were“on the hot side” and overstated the impact of emissions on average temperature, research has found. Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one of the study’s authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong. He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.” Speaking to The Times, he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.

Ben Webster, The Times, 19 September 2017

To have the discrepancy between climate model predictions and reality acknowledged in Nature Geoscience is good. It has already resulted in a substantial debate about this most fundamental approach to assessing the impact of man-made climate change, demonstrating once again that‘the science is definitely not settled. Assumptions made about important details of climate science that were accepted a decade ago are becoming increasingly frayed. Let us hope that a new era of scientific reality will replace the far-to-simple messages previously proclaimed to the public.

David Whitehouse, GWPF Observatory, 19 September 2017
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Predictions are just predictions. In the case of climate change there is no doubt that it is occurring. Whether or not it is occurring exactly as some have predicted is not important in the general concept. That said, the deniers will always be deniers regardless of any contradictory information that might be discovered or communicated to them. Rather than argue the case with them it's usually better to consider and work on actual scientific models and let the chips fall where they may. It is important to note that the genuine scientists that actually look at facts and demonstrated information continue to hold their findings as reasonably accurate and their predictions have proven true even though they might be only approximate. It's also important to note that those that deny the science of climate change continue to deny it regardless of the overwhelming evidence against their mere "opinions." The deniers have no science to back their claims up. They are repeatedly proven wrong on every accord.
 
Last edited:
Zippity Doo Da said:
Predictions are just predictions. In the case of climate change there is no doubt that it is occurring. Whether or not it is occurring exactly as some have predicted is not important in the general concept. That said, the deniers will always be deniers regardless of any contradictory information that might be discovered or communicated to them. Rather than argue the case with them it's usually better to consider and work on actual scientific models and let the chips fall where they may. It is important to note that the genuine scientists that actually look at facts and demonstrated information continue to hold their findings as reasonably accurate and their predictions have proven true even though they might be only approximate. It's also important to note that those that deny the science of climate change continue to deny it regardless of the overwhelming evidence against their mere "opinions." The deniers have no science to back their claims up. They are repeatedly proven wrong on every accord.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that scepticism is no longer an essential aspect to the scientific method? So should we just take the over egged predictions as gospel without any recourse to rigorous scrutiny? I have a scientific background, it sounds to me that you'd be happier with Scientology.
 
No. I am not saying that at all. I invite all science to produce their findings and discuss them on an intelligent level with open mindedness and a learned level of competence and discernment. I've found that in this stage of the scientific analyses of climate change there have been certainties generally agreed upon by the overwhelming majorities of interested parties and that have been demonstrated to my satisfaction to be pretty much on target and reasonably researched. Also at this stage of the scientific analyses there are those that simply disagree with only their disagreement to show for it. They have nothing scientific at all to demonstrate their "opinions" as accurate or worthy of serious concept entertainment. I am also scientifically inclined and I've run across several self-named scientists that have proven to me that they are not worthy in any way to proclaim themselves as competent to contribute in any meaningful way to the particular subjects in which they have chosen to debate. That's life.

And the investigations continue,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
Zippity Doo Da said:
No. I am not saying that at all. I invite all science to produce their findings and discuss them on an intelligent level with open mindedness and a learned level of competence and discernment. I've found that in this stage of the scientific analyses of climate change there have been certainties generally agreed upon by the overwhelming majorities of interested parties and that have been demonstrated to my satisfaction to be pretty much on target and reasonably researched. Also at this stage of the scientific analyses there are those that simply disagree with only their disagreement to show for it. They have nothing scientific at all to demonstrate their "opinions" as accurate or worthy of serious concept entertainment. I am also scientifically inclined and I've run across several self-named scientists that have proven to me that they are not worthy in any way to proclaim themselves as competent to contribute in any meaningful way to the particular subjects in which they have chosen to debate. That's life.

And the investigations continue,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Click to expand...

So when I was saying climate models overestimated warming by about 30% and was called a denier, that was the kind of debate you're talking about?
 
30% according to whom and by what data can that be affirmed? I operate from legitimate data analyses without any pre-determined expectations. Considering the agenda driven analyses and remarks from the denier crowds I experience almost total dismissal of them. I do appreciate hearty debate but I shutter the unfounded opinions without evidence that the deniers tend to blather about.

And the investigations continue,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
tinfoil said:
So when I was saying climate models overestimated warming by about 30% and was called a denier, that was the kind of debate you're talking about?
Click to expand...
I think that calling somebody a denier is very much in the same vein as calling somebody, who merely questions immigration, racist. They are both designed to shut down legitimate debate.
 
Corazón said:
I think that calling somebody a denier is very much in the same vein as calling somebody, who merely questions immigration, racist. They are both designed to shut down legitimate debate.
Click to expand...

Not quite because there is no evidence that climate change is caused by humans. If this were the case then there could have not been climate change before humans.

Thus climate change is real and a function of the Earth
 
TheDonald said:
Not quite because there is no evidence that climate change is caused by humans. If this were the case then there could have not been climate change before humans.

Thus climate change is real and a function of the Earth
Click to expand...
Can you just bugger off? You don't add anything constructive to the debate.
 
tinfoil said:
Oops, I may have been repeating misinformation. I can not verify my claim above, Sorry. Will keep looking for now, but I was wrong. I read it at Climate etc, which I trust greatly, but it was in the comments. Might have been someone making it up.
Click to expand...

God you're retarded.
 
There is ample evidence that the current episode of worldwide climate change is caused by the advent of the industrial age. Current climate degradation can be pointedly explained to the use of fossil fuels in the last 150 years or so. Other evidence is revealed in the amazing improvements to the atmosphere as fossil fuels and other contributors to climate degradation are systematically removed from specific locations. Argument against such positive proof is folly at best. That said, I encourage the deniers to proclaim their beliefs, in spite of evidence to the contrary, as loudly and as often as possible. Please. Carry on,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

And the investigations continue,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
Zippity Doo Da said:
There is ample evidence that the current episode of worldwide climate change is caused by the advent of the industrial age. Current climate degradation can be pointedly explained to the use of fossil fuels in the last 150 years or so. Other evidence is revealed in the amazing improvements to the atmosphere as fossil fuels and other contributors to climate degradation are systematically removed from specific locations. Argument against such positive proof is folly at best. That said, I encourage the deniers to proclaim their beliefs, in spite of evidence to the contrary, as loudly and as often as possible. Please. Carry on,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

And the investigations continue,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Click to expand...

Wrong, the climate warmed far more rapidly from 20,000 to 10,000 years ago which is when 99 percent of the ice age glaciation melted. This warming is still ongoing
 
I agree pretty much with Matt Ridley, he is a fellow lukewarmer.

In general, I would describe a ‘lukewarmer’ as someone who:

Thinks anthropogenic climate change is real but very far from being a planetary emergency.

Takes due notice of the increasing divergence between climate model predictions and observations and the growing body of scientific literature challenging IPCC climate sensitivity estimates.

Regards the usual pastiche of remedies — carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, renewable energy quota, CO2 performance standards — as either an expensive exercise in futility or a ‘cure’ worse than the alleged disease (depending how aggressively those policies are implemented).

Is impressed by — and thankful for — the immense albeit usually unsung benefits of the CO2 fertilisation effect on global agriculture and green things generally.

Recognizes that poverty remains the world’s leading cause of preventable illness*and premature death.

Understands that plentiful, affordable, scalable energy (most of which comes from CO2-emitting fossil fuels) is essential*to poverty eradication and progress towards a healthier, safer, more prosperous world.

As moral philosopher Alex Epstein recently put it, fossil energy companies did not take a safe climate and make it dangerous. They took a dangerous climate and made it vastly safer.

For too long many in the GOP have been hoodwinked by folks like Al Gore, Greenpeace, and the UN climate glitterati into believing the key issue is whether climate change is “real.”

Gore et al would have us believe that if we accept the reality of climate change, we must also agree that global warming “threatens the survival of civilisation and the habitability of the Earth,” hence that our only moral choice is to embrace their agenda of coercive de-carbonisation via centralised eco-energy planning.

Consequently, many GOP politicians and activists assume that to defend the economy and oppose regulatory excess, they must deny, or at least question whether, there is any evidence linking the long-term rise of greenhouse gas concentrations with the (moderate and non-alarming) increase in global temperatures since the 1880s.

That, alas, is exactly what the warming movement wants its opponents to say, not only because it makes them look “anti-science,” but also because it tacitly affirms the alarm narrative. As if all we have to do is assent to the virtual tautology that rising greenhouse gas concentrations have a greenhouse*(warming) effect, and we are compelled to concede every important scientific, economic, and moral point in a very complex debate.
Click to expand...

http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/01/22/lukewarmer-matt-ridley-on-how-to-debate-climate-change/
 
Last edited:
Corazón said:
Indeed, all these climate loonies on here ever think of is the worst case RCP 8.5 scenario as described by the IPCC. I have thread banned the worst offenders as they only ever produce heat rather light, waste of space all of them.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/13/a-closer-look-at-scenario-rcp8-5/
Click to expand...
Once I'm anointed King of America I willing to give tax credits for research into renewable energy much like we do for the NIH. Nothing wrong with renewable energy, it's part of advancing technology. But this doomsday, sky is falling , chicken little BS is an excuse for State Central Planning. I'd have more respect for the alarmists if they'd just come out and say they want state central planning of gubmint control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top