View Single Post
Old 10-16-2019, 06:15 PM   #7543 (permalink)
aerohead
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 15,883
Thanks: 23,957
Thanked 7,219 Times in 4,646 Posts
in a few hours

Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4 View Post
I already pointed out some of the cherry picking they did in the latest report but the true believers didn't want to hear it. Also the numerous temperature scenarios the ipcc had where clearly it wasn't going to be the end of the world.

Reading ipcc reports has absolutely confirmed that the climate cult true believes don't read the reports in their entirety for them selves. They might control F browse them for the most sensational bits and that's if they ever lay eyes on a report.

Riddle me this, the morning that the last ipcc report came out the cultists were in full melt down. The report had only been out for several hours at that point. How did they read 1,170 pages in a few hours?
Do you really expect someone to browse the report for maybe an hour and be able to give a rational assessment?

How about the The "quantification in oceann heat up take from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition" paper retraction?
That was the main paper used to make the ipcc oceans and cryosphere report.
None of them dare comment on the retraction, which tells me all I need to know.

The worst thing that could happen to the climate change movement is for people to read these reports for them selves. The true believers won't try to weaponize the reports and the children stressing out, needing mental health help because they are worried about climate change ending the world will be way better off. People on the fence will jump on to the rational side where climate change does happen but it's not any where near being able to kill even a slightly inconvenient number of us.
It's quite possible that draft reports were disseminated to the press before the official report release.Just so timely reporting could be made.
Also,the actual research reported would have been available to the public 24-months before the report was issued.
I get a very strong confirmation bias vibe from your reporting.Almost,if not obsessive.
The scientists are extremely careful about their claims.And first to show the weakness and recommended additional research they feel needed.I've yet to pick up any conspiritorial sense from any of the published literature.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
 
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
NeilBlanchard (10-17-2019)