Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Still Believe in Global Warming?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Something more to think about:


    Shades of grey – understanding grey swans

    “Economist and Financial Times columnist Tim Harford recently wrote that we humans are not just poor at predicting the future, but we are particularly bad at visualising the consequences of bad outcomes. Harford says we should not just ask “will this happen?” but also “what would we do if it did?”

    This approach, says Harford, helps us think sensibly about negative outcomes. One technique is to conduct a “pre-mortem”, a hypothetical post-mortem. This helps us to do our contingency planning in advance and mitigate the impact of those bad outcomes.

    Benjamin Franklin once famously said that “all cats are grey in the dark”, or in other words, features that cannot be discerned are not important. But the colour of swans does matter and we needn’t be in the dark about them. Identifying the grey swans, and understanding their probabilities and their impact, can help us to plan better in our investing, business or personal lives.”

    https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...ng-grey-swans/

    Comment


    • I couldn't resist:


















      Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

      Comment


      • Sea-Level Rise From Antarctic Ice Cliffs May Be Overestimated Because of Faulty Assumptions

        “Scientists have assumed that ice cliffs taller than 90 meters (about the height of the Statue of Liberty) would rapidly collapse under their own weight, contributing to more than 6 feet of sea-level rise by the end of the century — enough to completely flood Boston and other coastal cities. But now MITresearchers have found that this particular prediction may be overestimated. “

        https://scitechdaily.com/sea-level-r...y-assumptions/

        Comment


        • Why I don’t ‘believe’ in ‘science’ – Climate Etc.

          https://judithcurry.com/2019/03/26/w...ve-in-science/

          Comment


          • ^That whole thing is unnecessarily pedantic. When someone says "I believe in science", it's generally understood that it's meant as "I accept the findings that the scientific method has found". Even with a general consensus there's always going to be dissenting voices, so the fact that some (very few) scientists are skeptical of climate science doesn't make the statement "I believe in science" invalid.

            Comment


            • 2 cases On practical challenges of meeting emissions reduction:

              MIT Technology Review:

              https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...-by-a-century/

              But for all its regulatory achievements, California also offers a case study in just how hard it is to make progress on the only thing that really matters: reducing emissions.

              Meanwhile on limits of net-zero, slow travel:
              https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/st...131267591?s=21

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Snail View Post
                2 cases On practical challenges of meeting emissions reduction:

                MIT Technology Review:

                https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...-by-a-century/

                But for all its regulatory achievements, California also offers a case study in just how hard it is to make progress on the only thing that really matters: reducing emissions.

                Meanwhile on limits of net-zero, slow travel:
                https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/st...131267591?s=21
                Well, the costs haven't changed. So they've been lying about the economics of net zero for 40 years.

                What else do you think they might be lying about?

                And poor Greta, can't get another ride on a 10 million dollar racing yacht dedicated just for her? We stole her childhood and her dreams, now we're stealing her adolescence. LOL How long before she's flying all over the place like all the other hypocrites?
                Last edited by MrCombust; 03-11-2019, 07:25 AM.
                "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
                  ^That whole thing is unnecessarily pedantic. When someone says "I believe in science", it's generally understood that it's meant as "I accept the findings that the scientific method has found". Even with a general consensus there's always going to be dissenting voices, so the fact that some (very few) scientists are skeptical of climate science doesn't make the statement "I believe in science" invalid.
                  Maybe it's because I was raised as a conservative Christian but I am leery of phrases like "I believe the science" or "unite behind the science." Phrases like these put science on the same level as religious belief. Unlike religion, science is about establishing facts based on observation, measurement and experimentation. Science is about going where the evidence takes you even if this disproves pre-conceived biases or hypotheses.

                  The evidence of human caused global warming is overwhelming. But that doesn't mean there is necessarily a scientific consensus about the rate of future warming or its impacts.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by East McCauley View Post
                    science is about establishing facts based on observation, measurement and experimentation.
                    What "overwhelming" "observation, measurement, or experiment" do you have that the current warming was caused by man made CO2, and not just a natural variation?

                    Surely not the hockey stick graph.
                    Last edited by MrCombust; 03-11-2019, 04:07 PM.
                    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

                    Comment


                    • What's wrong with the graph that proves you wrong?
                      A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by East McCauley View Post
                        Originally posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
                        ^That whole thing is unnecessarily pedantic. When someone says "I believe in science", it's generally understood that it's meant as "I accept the findings that the scientific method has found". Even with a general consensus there's always going to be dissenting voices, so the fact that some (very few) scientists are skeptical of climate science doesn't make the statement "I believe in science" invalid.
                        Maybe it's because I was raised as a conservative Christian but I am leery of phrases like "I believe the science" or "unite behind the science." Phrases like these put science on the same level as religious belief. Unlike religion, science is about establishing facts based on observation, measurement and experimentation. Science is about going where the evidence takes you even if this disproves pre-conceived biases or hypotheses.

                        The evidence of human caused global warming is overwhelming. But that doesn't mean there is necessarily a scientific consensus about the rate of future warming or its impacts.
                        Well said. Science should be all about discovery of facts and continued questioning of facts. Forecasts based on science are still forecasts and that forecasting effort should be seen as a reasonable thing to do but not as an absolutely correct forecast of the future. As such we should consider is as a probability not as an absolute.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
                          Originally posted by East McCauley View Post
                          science is about establishing facts based on observation, measurement and experimentation.
                          What "overwhelming" "observation, measurement, or experiment" do you have that the current warming was caused by man made CO2, and not just a natural variation?

                          Surely not the hockey stick graph.
                          You mean the hundreds of posts that show exactly that? What's the point of posting even more evidence you won't read, or will find some crap excuse as to why it's not valid.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
                            Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
                            Originally posted by East McCauley View Post
                            science is about establishing facts based on observation, measurement and experimentation.
                            What "overwhelming" "observation, measurement, or experiment" do you have that the current warming was caused by man made CO2, and not just a natural variation?

                            Surely not the hockey stick graph.
                            You mean the hundreds of posts that show exactly that? What's the point of posting even more evidence you won't read, or will find some crap excuse as to why it's not valid.
                            You mean the hundreds of posts with Michael Mann's hockey stick graph that he wouldn't supply the data for in a court of law? How can anybody "measure" or "observe" what Michael Mann won't give us? Or the hundreds of posts that are based on untested, and/or failed software simulation predictions of the future? Is a software simulation a "measurement"? Is the output of a programmers program an "observation"?

                            Yeah, you can throw all those in the shitcan. Got anything else?
                            Last edited by MrCombust; 04-11-2019, 03:57 PM.
                            "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

                            Comment


                            • Anything the climate change believers side has is still more than the skeptics side who all they have is????


                              nothing! Nothing that science will accept.

                              It's just theories

                              Theories that have been disproven.

                              Theories that can't pass a litmus test

                              Theories that smell like bulls hit

                              MrCombust is junk science at best.

                              MrCombust got so annoyed when his thread of misinformation got ignored, he's started now polluting other threads. (pun intended)
                              A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                              Comment


                              • C, if predictions/forecasts/simulations are no good at all because they can never be proven in advance, what do you suggest for an alternative?


                                Or the hundreds of posts that are based on untested, and/or failed software simulation predictions of the future? Is a software simulation a "measurement"? Is the output of a programmers program an "observation"?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X