• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

IPCC Report: Trouble Ahead

Jack Hays said:
The same Nic Lewis who compelled revisions to Resplandy et al.

[h=2]Remarkable changes to carbon emission budgets in the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Posted on[/FONT] [URL="https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/18/remarkable-changes-to-carbon-emission-budgets-in-the-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c/"]October 18, 2018[/URL] by niclewis | 121 comments[/FONT]
by Nic Lewis A close reading of Chapters 1 and 2 of the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) reveals some interesting changes from the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5), and other science-relevant statements. This article highlights … Continue reading →
Click to expand...

Is this more credible than the thousands and thousands of scientists worldwide, and all the major scientific organizations?
 
Media_Truth said:
Is this more credible than the thousands and thousands of scientists worldwide, and all the major scientific organizations?
Click to expand...

Have you taken a poll of all of them? It's been explained how such things work.
 
The IPCC...

:lamo

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

Not the first time someone from the IPCC has admitted the entire goal of the IPCC and the whole 'climate change' movement is wealth redistribution.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Have you taken a poll of all of them? It's been explained how such things work.
Click to expand...

Through your denier blogs. None of you have disproven anything from these bodies of sciences. NADA!!!
 
Media_Truth said:
Through your denier blogs. None of you have disproven anything from these bodies of sciences. NADA!!!
Click to expand...

Please show me my denier blog I refer to.

Are you really that daft not to understand that what I say is on my own research on the topic through peer reviewed papers, my knowledge of the sciences, and observation?

You need to stop slandering me by accusing me of reciting deniers. Just because you are to incompetent of the sciences to understand and form your own words and conclusions and have to recite blogs, doesn't mean I do.
 
VanceMack said:
The IPCC...

:lamo

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

Not the first time someone from the IPCC has admitted the entire goal of the IPCC and the whole 'climate change' movement is wealth redistribution.
Click to expand...

Nothing to add, just thought it deserved posting a second time.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Please show me my denier blog I refer to.

Are you really that daft not to understand that what I say is on my own research on the topic through peer reviewed papers, my knowledge of the sciences, and observation?

You need to stop slandering me by accusing me of reciting deniers. Just because you are to incompetent of the sciences to understand and form your own words and conclusions and have to recite blogs, doesn't mean I do.
Click to expand...

‘My own research on the topic’

LOL
 
Threegoofs said:
‘My own research on the topic’

LOL
Click to expand...

Just because you aren't capable of such things doesn't mean your should project your lack of performance on others.
 
Lord of Planar said:
And his posts haven't been disproved either, meaning the climate sciences are not settled.
Click to expand...

If the vast body of scientific researchers tell us that cigarettes cause cancer, emphysema, and other health disorders, we believe them. When the vast body of climatologists tell us that greenhouse gases are causing climate change, the world largely believes them. And this has been the accepted science since the mid-2000s. The oil industry propaganda is all you folks have. It is your responsibility to disprove the vast body of Climatologists, whose work is supported by every major scientific organization in the world. Likewise, if tobacco companies want to start stating that their product is healthy, they would have to prove the vast body of medical research to be wrong.
 
Media_Truth said:
If the vast body of scientific researchers tell us that cigarettes cause cancer, emphysema, and other health disorders, we believe them. When the vast body of climatologists tell us that greenhouse gases are causing climate change, the world largely believes them. And this has been the accepted science since the mid-2000s. The oil industry propaganda is all you folks have. It is your responsibility to disprove the vast body of Climatologists, whose work is supported by every major scientific organization in the world. Likewise, if tobacco companies want to start stating that their product is healthy, they would have to prove the vast body of medical research to be wrong.
Click to expand...

Just for U:

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science.
It didn’t turn out that way. In poring over medical journals, he was struck by how many findings of all types were refuted by later findings. Of course, medical-science “never minds” are hardly secret. And they sometimes make headlines, as when in recent years large studies or growing consensuses of researchers concluded that mammograms, colonoscopies, and PSA tests are far less useful cancer-detection tools than we had been told; or when widely prescribed antidepressants such as Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil were revealed to be no more effective than a placebo for most cases of depression; or when we learned that staying out of the sun entirely can actually increase cancer risks; or when we were told that the advice to drink lots of water during intense exercise was potentially fatal; or when, last April, we were informed that taking fish oil, exercising, and doing puzzles doesn’t really help fend off Alzheimer’s disease, as long claimed. Peer-reviewed studies have come to opposite conclusions on whether using cell phones can cause brain cancer, whether sleeping more than eight hours a night is healthful or dangerous, whether taking aspirin every day is more likely to save your life or cut it short, and whether routine angioplasty works better than pills to unclog heart arteries.

But beyond the headlines, Ioannidis was shocked at the range and reach of the reversals he was seeing in everyday medical research. “Randomized controlled trials,” which compare how one group responds to a treatment against how an identical group fares without the treatment, had long been considered nearly unshakable evidence, but they, too, ended up being wrong some of the time. “I realized even our gold-standard research had a lot of problems,” he says. Baffled, he started looking for the specific ways in which studies were going wrong. And before long he discovered that the range of errors being committed was astonishing: from what questions researchers posed, to how they set up the studies, to which patients they recruited for the studies, to which measurements they took, to how they analyzed the data, to how they presented their results, to how particular studies came to be published in medical journals.
Click to expand...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/







:2wave:
 
Media_Truth said:
If the vast body of scientific researchers tell us that cigarettes cause cancer, emphysema, and other health disorders, we believe them. When the vast body of climatologists tell us that greenhouse gases are causing climate change, the world largely believes them. And this has been the accepted science since the mid-2000s. The oil industry propaganda is all you folks have. It is your responsibility to disprove the vast body of Climatologists, whose work is supported by every major scientific organization in the world. Likewise, if tobacco companies want to start stating that their product is healthy, they would have to prove the vast body of medical research to be wrong.
Click to expand...

This lame argument again?

Doctors over the world who contribute to data collection have seen and treated hundreds of millions of humans. We only have one earth. This is such a silly argument to try compare the level of understanding between medicine and the earth system.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Just for U:

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/







:2wave:
Click to expand...

That's not about Climate Change or Tobacco.
 
Lord of Planar said:
This lame argument again?

Doctors over the world who contribute to data collection have seen and treated hundreds of millions of humans. We only have one earth. This is such a silly argument to try compare the level of understanding between medicine and the earth system.
Click to expand...

NOT --- Every major scientific organization state cigarettes cause cancer and other illnesses.
Every major scientific organization state that mankind is causing climate change through
increased atmospheric CO2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom