View Single Post
Old 01-05-2019, 02:12 PM   #4409 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
aerohead's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 13,218
Thanks: 21,151
Thanked 6,429 Times in 4,006 Posts
IPCC reports

Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
I'm trying to bait someone into providing evidence that prior IPCC reports have given good enough prediction of events that transpired that we can have increased faith that current/future reports are likely to be accurate.

My point is that every cause proclaims itself as being most important, and those most involved have a greater bias to see things the way they want/expect to see them. I'm not too sceptical of the scientific methods used to gather data, but I am sceptical of the interpretation of the data with regards to framing the problem in the most appropriate sense of scale.

The apocalypse is inevitable, but there are various faiths about how that will come about. Some believe it will be due to the outdoor thermostat being messed with too much. This seems highly unlikely to me considering the more direct ways in which humans harm others, and in light of humanity prospering in nearly every measurable way over time.

I don't find objecting to subjectivity to be entirely pointless. If my car is scientifically measured to be going 90 miles per hour, there is little point in arguing the objectivity of that reading. On the other hand, if someone says I'll surely die because that is too fast, then I object to the subjective interpretation of the objective data.
The IPCC reports are structurally deficient.
They don't contain 'current' data.All of them.
Some of the data necessary for the climate models won't even be available until 2041.
The Republican and Democratic parties have actively limited research budgets and banned the purchase of foreign supercomputers when no domestic products existed.These could have helped to bring formerly classified archival database information into the public domain,for inclusion in modelling for the IPCC research.
Since all IPCC reports are based upon statistical probability,they tend to concentrate their language on the higher probabilities,while downplaying the darker projections.
The IPCC does not include data on 'amplification' observations,witnessed in the field.
All global ice sheet and glacier melting is off the charts compared to model predictions.And the IPCC says nothing about it,other than caveats mentioning 'surprises.'
As well,the IPCC has no authority to set policy of any kind.All they can do is make recommendations based on incomplete data.
So far,Earth isn't important enough to waste human and financial resources on.
Scientists,who might be part of a 'solution', have to go begging,door-to-door,for grant money spent on fashion and leisure.
It's way -----d up.
Photobucket album:
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
NeilBlanchard (01-05-2019)