• 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!

Meet the IPCC Scientists

Terryj said:
Climate change affects all life on this planet, it always has and always will. Hence, we no longer have Wooly Mammoths, Hairy Rinos, Giant Sloths and Saber tooth cats roaming the planet, these all went extinct because of climate change and the change in the environment.
Click to expand...

I get that, I really do. Species have been going extinct on this planet forever. But if we do nothing to curb our use of dirty energy sources and continue the current trend of dramatically rising global temperature, we could very well be next.
 
flogger said:
Follow the money. No point in saying something 'inconvenient' that might not get you paid and there are megabucks to be made here promoting this BS to the wilfully gullible:wink:
Click to expand...

I agree, follow the money. It will lead you straight to the fossil fuel industry.
 
Idiometer said:
Polar bears are one of the most affected species. Not only are they losing massive numbers, they are being forced to venture out of the arctic and into human populations in search of food and survival.

Here, try this. You don't even have to read the report just watch the video and read the captions.

Polar Bears Are Starving Because of Global Warming, Melting Sea Ice, Study Shows
Click to expand...

Nope. The polar bears are flourishing. Arctic life sticks close to water, and so where ever the ice is is where the seals are, and where the seals are, so are the bears. Seals are actually better defended from predators on ice edge than on the beach since it gives them quick access to deep water, so warmer weather helps the polar bears hunt. The chief effect on Polar Bears of loss of sea ice is that it puts them in competition with humans more often.

There has been less sea ice numerous times within the existence of the polar bear species and they would have died out numerous times if they were as fragile as the alarmists want us to believe.

polar-bear-playing-flower-field-dennis-fast-22.jpg


"Heeeeelp!!" :lamo
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
You realize impacts are happening now, right?

And you realize that warming will continue- you’ve admitted as much - and the impacts upon animals and habitat will be that much more affected, right?

Even at the low end of the predicted range (which you irrationally cling to) will have substantial effects.
Click to expand...

No, they are inferring that any changes are somehow related to observed changes in the climate,
which may have no relation to Human activity.
Simply saying that every single observed change is related to AGW, does not make it true!
 
Deuce said:
Link all of the papers he has published "predicting the weather."
Click to expand...

He isn't a meteorologist. He doesn't predict the weather. He studies the effects of rising temperatures on various animal species.

The utter ignorance on this thread regarding the many scientific disciplines involved in the study of global warming is truly stunning. It seems as if nothing that requires more than a dozen syllables is at all understandable to the right wing mind. This is NOT a simple issue.
 
longview said:
No, they are inferring that any changes are somehow related to observed changes in the climate,
which may have no relation to Human activity.
Simply saying that every single observed change is related to AGW, does not make it true!
Click to expand...

Right. That’s why they have experts who can tease out the differences.

Unlike, for example, yourself, who’s a lazy amateur who has a political libertarian agenda.
 
Threegoofs said:
Not really.

IPCC statisticians
Click to expand...

21 statisticians "involved" with the IPCC? You do realize the monumental task of modeling past present and future climate? You are proving my point.

The errors of Climate Science have almost uniformly come from the poor application of statistical procedures in the pursuit of pre-ordained outcomes. 21 statisticians "involved" in the IPCC doesn't change that. :roll:
 
longview said:
The point is that the biologist can say what might happen to animal life... IF, the climate predictions are not only accurate,
but at the mid to high end of the predicted range.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, what this man and others in his field are studying isn't just the possible future effects of climate change, but the effects that are already observable.
 
jmotivator said:
21 statisticians "involved" with the IPCC? You do realize the monumental task of modeling past present and future climate? You are proving my point.

The errors of Climate Science have almost uniformly come from the poor application of statistical procedures in the pursuit of pre-ordained outcomes. 21 statisticians "involved" in the IPCC doesn't change that. :roll:
Click to expand...

Do you realize that virtually all PhD trained scientists have some degree of statistics background, and many have very extensive knowledge, since a huge amount of their work is statistical analysis?

Love how now the goalposts move from ‘they don’t know anything about statistics’ to ‘they only have 21 professional statisticians’. [emoji849]
 
Threegoofs said:
Right. That’s why they have experts who can tease out the differences.

Unlike, for example, yourself, who’s a lazy amateur who has a political libertarian agenda.
Click to expand...
How would they know the difference? Think about it? Science cannot say with any accuracy, what the resultant
average temperature will be from a doubling of CO2 to within 3 C (the error range of ECS being 1.5 to 4.5 C)
No! the scientist doing the potential impacts of AGW work, assume the higher end range of what the
Physical basis scientist provide them. They are all, what, IF, work products!
 
jmotivator said:
Nope. The polar bears are flourishing. Arctic life sticks close to water, and so where ever the ice is is where the seals are, and where the seals are, so are the bears. Seals are actually better defended from predators on ice edge than on the beach since it gives them quick access to deep water, so warmer weather helps the polar bears hunt. The chief effect on Polar Bears of loss of sea ice is that it puts them in competition with humans more often.

There has been less sea ice numerous times within the existence of the polar bear species and they would have died out numerous times if they were as fragile as the alarmists want us to believe.

polar-bear-playing-flower-field-dennis-fast-22.jpg


"Heeeeelp!!" :lamo
Click to expand...

They are losing massive population numbers.

Polar Bear | Species | WWF

They are also losing large percentages of body mass due to the increased effort of finding food. And this is just one species.
 
longview said:
The point is that the biologist can say what might happen to animal life... IF, the climate predictions are not only accurate,
but at the mid to high end of the predicted range.
Click to expand...

He can say that, yes.

So what's the issue, again?
 
longview said:
No, they are inferring that any changes are somehow related to observed changes in the climate,
which may have no relation to Human activity.
Simply saying that every single observed change is related to AGW, does not make it true!
Click to expand...

They aren't saying that. Nobody is saying that. Why do you persist in this completely stupid ****ing lie?
 
Idiometer said:
On the contrary, what this man and others in his field are studying isn't just the possible future effects of climate change, but the effects that are already observable.
Click to expand...
Except that attribution of current observable changes to changes in CO2 levels is at best challenging.
Loss of habitat from changes in land use is likely has a far greater effect on a given population than
a .9 C higher average temperature, that mostly affected low temperatures.
 
jmotivator said:
21 statisticians "involved" with the IPCC? You do realize the monumental task of modeling past present and future climate? You are proving my point.

The errors of Climate Science have almost uniformly come from the poor application of statistical procedures in the pursuit of pre-ordained outcomes. 21 statisticians "involved" in the IPCC doesn't change that. :roll:
Click to expand...

Really because somewhere else on this message board someone is saying one physicist can declare the whole thing a hoax after "a couple hours on google."
 
Deuce said:
He can say that, yes.

So what's the issue, again?
Click to expand...
The "IF" is not cast in stone anywhere, yet they are making impact statements
as if the "IF" were absolutely going to happen.
 
longview said:
Except that attribution of current observable changes to changes in CO2 levels is at best challenging.
Loss of habitat from changes in land use is likely has a far greater effect on a given population than
a .9 C higher average temperature, that mostly affected low temperatures.
Click to expand...

How likely? How did you calculate this likelihood? Show your research paper.
 
longview said:
The "IF" is not cast in stone anywhere, yet they are making impact statements
as if the "IF" were absolutely going to happen.
Click to expand...

Show me the impact statement that lead you to this conclusion.
 
Deuce said:
They aren't saying that. Nobody is saying that. Why do you persist in this completely stupid ****ing lie?
Click to expand...
Right! look at some of the thread titles in the very section.
"Thread: March 2019 is the second hottest March on Record"
a single month means almost nothing in terms of climate change, which is generally considered a change over 30 years.
 
Deuce said:
Link all of the papers he has published "predicting the weather."
Click to expand...

Inst that what the IPCC is supposed to be doing?

Idiometer said:
You see no connection between animals and climate change? This isn't just our own habitat we're poisoning, it's theirs, too. This guy is probably studying the adaptive changes taking place in many species due to climate changes in their natural habitats.
Click to expand...
Really? How does he do that? Does he talk to the animals and ask them the temperature?

Idiometer said:
Polar bears are one of the most affected species. Not only are they losing massive numbers, they are being forced to venture out of the arctic and into human populations in search of food and survival.

Here, try this. You don't even have to read the report just watch the video and read the captions.

Polar Bears Are Starving Because of Global Warming, Melting Sea Ice, Study Shows
Click to expand...

Here is a perfect example of fake news by the IPCC and their allies.

Polar bears are not dying out.

Polar bears not starving, says Nunatsiavut wildlife manager | CBC News

Even the WWF (which is regularly cited by the IPCC) says that polar bear populations are fine. 1 region out of 19 is the only area where they are decreasing, versus growth in 2 regions, and the rest are either stable or not reporting.

Polar bear status and population | WWF Arctic
 
longview said:
How would they know the difference? Think about it? Science cannot say with any accuracy, what the resultant
average temperature will be from a doubling of CO2 to within 3 C (the error range of ECS being 1.5 to 4.5 C)
No! the scientist doing the potential impacts of AGW work, assume the higher end range of what the
Physical basis scientist provide them. They are all, what, IF, work products!
Click to expand...

You don’t understand the range probabilities.

I’d be amazed since you’ve been babbling about this topic for ever, but I’m not surprised by any of you disingenuous deniers anymore.

The likelihood of under 2 is very, very low, and the likelihood of 3 degrees is high. The likelihood of 4+ is also low, but it’s especially critical to examine the impact in these worst-case scenarios, as is done with all planning.
 
Threegoofs said:
You don’t understand the range probabilities.

I’d be amazed since you’ve been babbling about this topic for ever, but I’m not surprised by any of you disingenuous deniers anymore.

The likelihood of under 2 is very, very low, and the likelihood of 3 degrees is high. The likelihood of 4+ is also low, but it’s especially critical to examine the impact in these worst-case scenarios, as is done with all planning.
Click to expand...
Actually it is you who do not understand the range.
The range is so broad because they cannot model clouds with any accuracy.
This is further complicated by the fact that the empirical data shows a low sensitivity, while the models show a high sensitivity.
but we actually have a decent understanding why the models are running hot.
Hansen had a lot of input on the wonderland model, so his assumptions of sensitivity are baked into
the model, and Hansen states that he thinks the diurnal asymmetry will disappear, and the T-Max will be equal to T-Min.
Forget that we have over a century of data showing that the asymmetry has been consistent,
and was expected in the nineteenth century as well.
 
Deuce said:
How likely? How did you calculate this likelihood? Show your research paper.
Click to expand...
Just a wild guess that cutting down forest, likely has a greater impact than average temperatures being 1C warmer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom