Writer claims Trump raped her

[ecco]

No, none of his papers are published on Popular Technology.

You may be right.
Popular Technology publishes his opinion pieces.
He has no scientific papers.

And now I am completely bored.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

My point is that when one stands back and looks at the "woods" instead of just some "trees", we well know that climate change has led to the global warming that has been taking place over the last century especially, and that it is mostly caused by human endeavor. The NAS, which is as close here in the States as an official monitor of scientific evidence, has concluded as such without reservation, and they are the main scientific group that advises our federal representatives and justices.

Other groups, including NASA, NOAA, and even our own DoD, have also concluded much the same. The only opposition of such comes from status quo and/or right-wing sources, many of the latter being heavy into what we call "pseudo-science", namely having a desired conclusion being the driving force of which evidence is to be touted and/or fabricating "evidence". This is not at all a new tactic with them as this disingenuous approach goes back many decades, and probably even further.

Sure, all who have followed the debate understand that the world has warmed by about 1C over the last 130 years since records began, but since the science can not say precisely what proportion of that warming is natural, and what is due to human derived GHG, the IPCC projections can not be relied on to be accurate. So it is not just a case of human endeavors causing a part of the warming, the debate is about how much. The agw alarmists say the world's temperatures will soon be so high as to be catastrophic, the skeptics say not so much that we can't adapt. Endorsements from left and right of politics doesn't change things much, the science on the critical understanding of the precise contribution on human derived increase is not settled yet, and no amount of hand waving is going to persuade the skeptics that we can't wait for that and we must take mitigation now.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You may be right.
Popular Technology publishes his opinion pieces.
He has no scientific papers.

And now I am completely bored.

You mean Richard Tol or PopTech?

 

[metis]

but since the science can not say precisely what proportion of that warming is natural, and what is due to human derived GHG, the IPCC projections can not be relied on to be accurate. So it is not just a case of human endeavors causing a part of the warming, the debate is about how much.

In terms of exact proportion, that's true, but in terms of general proportion, they have overwhelmingly concluded over the last two decades that it is human endeavors that is the #1 cause.

The agw alarmists say the world's temperatures will soon be so high as to be catastrophic, the skeptics say not so much that we can't adapt.

The projections do not conclude that all human life would go extinct, but they do conclude that it would negatively affect billions in such a way as to jeopardize many of their lives. Even our DoD is very concerned about this because it would cause major upheavals in many areas of the world, and the world already has enough turmoil in it as it is. Some models indicate that an increase of 2.5 C could put us in a downward spiral that would be a point of no return, and we already are a bit over 1.5 C.

and no amount of hand waving is going to persuade the skeptics that we can't wait for that and we must take mitigation now.

There will always be skeptics, but the question would have to be are we going to just listen to the skeptics and then throw up our hands and say "Who knows and who cares?". It's like living in a 20th floor apartment and deciding to just throw a bag of garbage out the window with the idea that maybe it won't hit anyone; or taking a high-dive into a pool without knowing if the water is deep enough.

IOW, ignorance is doing nothing in reaction to what the overwhelming number of climate scientists have now concluded.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In terms of exact proportion, that's true, but in terms of general proportion, they have overwhelmingly concluded over the last two decades that it is human endeavors that is the #1 cause.

The projections do not conclude that all human life would go extinct, but they do conclude that it would negatively affect billions in such a way as to jeopardize many of their lives. Even our DoD is very concerned about this because it would cause major upheavals in many areas of the world, and the world already has enough turmoil in it as it is. Some models indicate that an increase of 2.5 C could put us in a downward spiral that would be a point of no return, and we already are a bit over 1.5 C.

There will always be skeptics, but the question would have to be are we going to just listen to the skeptics and then throw up our hands and say "Who knows and who cares?". It's like living in a 20th floor apartment and deciding to just throw a bag of garbage out the window with the idea that maybe it won't hit anyone; or taking a high-dive into a pool without knowing if the water is deep enough.

IOW, ignorance is doing nothing in reaction to what the overwhelming number of climate scientists have now concluded.

So we appear to agree on the science except for one thing, how precise a knowledge do climate scientists have wrt the proportion of human GHG cause to natural cause. I might add, even on the agw side itself, the wide spread IPCC CMIP model projections show there is no consensus on this question. So the ultimate proof will really only ever come about by falsification, that is, by comparing the various model projection against observed. This will take time and has already been happening as with each new IPCC AR, many of the models have been modified through backcasting to better match the observed temperature.

In the mean time, the more alarmist activists are crying doomsday ahead if we don't act now, and the more skeptical are saying forget it, all is ok. The point is that the precise knowledge of future temperature is not yet possible to predict with certainty, but with the elimination or modification of the various models that show error through falsification of projection against observed, models will eventually yield a more accurate assessment of climate future.

And btw, these type of headlines do the agw alarmists no favors, most people are not altogether stupid, they are not frightened by such chicken little tactics, yet the UN IPCC, agw climate science itself, msm, never say a critical word about any agw doomsday story, now matter how ridiculous, so long as the message is about climate catastrophe ahead soon.

We have 18 months to save world, Prince Charles warns Commonwealth leaders

 

[ecco]

And btw, these type of headlines do the agw alarmists no favors, most people are not altogether stupid, they are not frightened by such chicken little tactics, yet the UN IPCC, agw climate science itself, msm, never say a critical word about any agw doomsday story, now matter how ridiculous, so long as the message is about climate catastrophe ahead soon.

We have 18 months to save world, Prince Charles warns Commonwealth leaders

This is alarmist chicken little tactics? (from your link)

“Next year’s Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting stands of course at a pivotal point in the middle of these events and will be an absolutely vital moment to consolidate consensus on the way forward, not least of which, will be the deliberations on how to increase the amount of private sector finance flowing towards supporting sustainable development throughout the Commonwealth.”
​

Did you bother reading the article or did you just jump on the headline?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is alarmist chicken little tactics? (from your link)

“Next year’s Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting stands of course at a pivotal point in the middle of these events and will be an absolutely vital moment to consolidate consensus on the way forward, not least of which, will be the deliberations on how to increase the amount of private sector finance flowing towards supporting sustainable development throughout the Commonwealth.”
​

Did you bother reading the article or did you just jump on the headline?

Yes, but did you? He said “Ladies and gentlemen, I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival.'

 

[ecco]

This is alarmist chicken little tactics? (from your link)

“Next year’s Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting stands of course at a pivotal point in the middle of these events and will be an absolutely vital moment to consolidate consensus on the way forward, not least of which, will be the deliberations on how to increase the amount of private sector finance flowing towards supporting sustainable development throughout the Commonwealth.”

Did you bother reading the article or did you just jump on the headline?

Yes, but did you? He said “Ladies and gentlemen, I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival.'

Oh, I see. You read the article but you didn't understand it. That's not surprising.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh, I see. You read the article but you didn't understand it. That's not surprising.

Haha....the way I understand it is that Prince Charles is saying..."I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival.' Iow, if there is no climate change mitigation plan agreed to within 18 months, human civilization wont be able to survive.

How do you understand it?

 

[metis]

And btw, these type of headlines do the agw alarmists no favors, most people are not altogether stupid, they are not frightened by such chicken little tactics, yet the UN IPCC, agw climate science itself, msm, never say a critical word about any agw doomsday story, now matter how ridiculous, so long as the message is about climate catastrophe ahead soon.

If you want to ignore or just not accept what our science agencies have concluded now for roughly two decades, that's your choice. But as a scientist, even though my specialization is in a different area of science, I'm going in their direction based on experience.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you want to ignore or just not accept what our science agencies have concluded now for roughly two decades, that's your choice. But as a scientist, even though my specialization is in a different area of science, I'm going in their direction based on experience.

I do you think that Prince Charles' assessment that the world has 18 months, and if an appropriate climate change plan is not agreed to, humanity will not survive, is over the top, but each soul is free to determine what they think is true.

 

[metis]

I do you think that Prince Charles' assessment that the world has 18 months, and if an appropriate climate change plan is not agreed to, humanity will not survive, is over the top, but each soul is free to determine what they think is true.

Yes, I believe that is over the top based on the scientific estimates that I've seen. And of course people can believe or not believe what they want, but what may be "true" is not based on popularity polls.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

^ Totally in agreement Metis.