|
Does anyone have some information on the accuracy of the various IPCC assessment report predictions? I've been discussing global warming with two co-workers for a while now. They're at fairly different ends of the spectrum regarding global warming - one is taking a really stubborn stance ("we don't know what's happening and there's no way to know what's happening. Also Climategate.") while the other accepts the scientific literature behind it but is skeptical of the ability of models to predict the impact of greenhouse gasses. When I was talking to the latter, we realized neither of us actually had any data to back up our assertions - models can be accurate vs. models are rarely accurate - so we just called it a truce until we could generate some evidence.
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2011 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 02:13 |
|
|
eh4 posted:So, blame China? "Canada only emits 1% of emissions. China emits way more! Therefore we should do nothing." gently caress I hate that line of logic.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2011 03:56
|
|
|
Office Thug posted:Most people would be surprised just how many "expert" global warming denialists have ties with sectors that would be affected negatively by stricter regulations on emissions or by moving away from fossil fuels to alternatives: http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database Of course Ross McKitrick is a fellow at the Fraser Institute.  , I'm glad to see how often the National Post comes up on this website.
Stephen Harper fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Dec 11, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
I find Skeptical Science useful for providing scientific papers and discussing arguments about global warming. Real Climate is a blog featuring posts by climate scientists. Both have sections for "beginners".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:More like conservatives simply refuse to IIRC the Liberals didn't do much for it when they were in power either.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 04:16
|
|
|
I hate the quasi-conspiracy theory that "Big Green" is somehow at the same level as "Big Oil" or "Big Pharma" in terms of power. One of the assumptions in there is that the scientists studying climate change will get their fame/prestige/grant money if they only churn out results that confirm anthropogenic global warming. On the flip side if you're a scientist that sincerely believes we're not causing global warming, there is an entire industry (literally the world's richest) out there willing to pay for your research and send you around the world to visit conferences, think thanks, do various pundit circuits, etc. Basically if there are scientists out there with legitimate published research that goes against humans causing global warming, either they're staying silent because none of them are drawn to fame and fortune, or because there's no such research.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2011 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 02:13 |
|
|
err posted:Dumb question: Why is "climate change" being adopted as the contemporary scientific term for what's going on? Wasn't it coined by a conservative during the Bush years to diminish the seriousness of the warming to the public? It's not a propaganda thing. "Climate change" has been used for a long time, probably just as long as global warming. Here's a NASA article on the two.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2011 12:43
|
|