View Single Post
Old 10-20-2019, 05:06 PM   #7597 (permalink)
aerohead
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 13,513
Thanks: 21,500
Thanked 6,502 Times in 4,065 Posts
IPCC

Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4 View Post
I know the true believers aren't reading the reports and I know they aren't reading the supporting papers.
You your self had no idea what The "quantification in oceann heat up take from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition" paper was before we told you about it or that it had had been retracted in nature which means it's straight up junk science.

No conspiracy theories here. Just pointing out really obvious cherry picking. If any one counter argued with a very conveniently short 50 year time period as the base line for post industrial climate the believers would absolutely call them out on cherry picking.

I think everyone should read ipcc reports, my conformation bias does nothing at that point.
My confirmation bias didn't cause the foundational paper of the ipcc report to be retracted. It was the guys who made the paper, blame their self righteous confirmation bias.
Obviously these guys weren't very careful.
They were careless, screwed up, screwed up a lot and got caught.

So you don't want to talk about the report, cherry picking, retraction of base studies ect?
Just dodge, dodge, dodge.

My best find is a mechanical engineer. He says don't ever trust a computer model if you can't see all the source data and the programming.
The problem with mechanical engineers is the bean counters don't listen to them.
The higher ups almost always want the cheapest fastest future be damed solution the engineer can eek out.
When you actually share some 'science' I'll be happy to participate.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
 
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
NeilBlanchard (10-21-2019)