Cyclone Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Our current level of understanding, as summarized in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007), is as follows: Since 1950, the number of heat waves has increased and widespread increases have occurred in the numbers of warm nights. The extent of regions affected by droughts has also increased as precipitation over land has marginally decreased while evaporation has increased due to warmer conditions. Generally, numbers of heavy daily precipitation events that lead to flooding have increased, but not everywhere. Tropical storm and hurricane frequencies vary considerably from year to year, but evidence suggests substantial increases in intensity and duration since the 1970s.In the extratropics, variations in tracks and intensity of storms reflect variations in major features of the atmospheric circulation, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation. Is the IPCC supposed to be considered as credible given the number of outright lies that they've published and then had to retract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitisbad Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Is the IPCC supposed to be considered as credible given the number of outright lies that they've published and then had to retract? they are backed by the majority of the scientific community. though I admit some people may have felt political pressure to try and prove a certain point. This is somethign that has been condemmed by the scientific community as a whole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Majority of the scientific community thought that the Himalayas would be ice free by 2050 did they? Then they all changed their minds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Is the IPCC supposed to be considered as credible given the number of outright lies that they've published and then had to retract? Assuming we cannot know the truth of the matter completely, is it possible to intuit a sense of the risks we are running from the broad data that we can rely upon? As a starting point - is it possible to agree that there are homeostatic mechanisms in the biosphere that regulate the climate? Or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitisbad Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Majority of the scientific community thought that the Himalayas would be ice free by 2050 did they? Then they all changed their minds? scientists will admit they are wrong when new evidence comes to light, unlike polititions and others with vested interesets in playing down the threat of climate change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 <snip> Weren't you trying to deny that there was a consensus yesterday? what happened to that? Your reasoning appears to have changed to 'so what if there's a consensus amongst scientists, I'm gonna ignore it because sometimes scientists are wrong' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 There's no proof that any action we take would either have any affect or all or that if it did it would be beneficial. As recently as the 1970's scientists were predicting that the current interglacial period (which has been unusually long and stable) could come to an end in the near future. I suspect that entering a new ice age would be quite detrimental to us... CO2 is a green house gas, fact and undisputed, we are increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, fact and undisputed, so we must be affecting global temperatures and climate. We could believe some of the scientists and nothing bad will ever happen, if they are wrong it could be too late to reverse and the next generation suffer. We could believe another group of scientist that say if we don’t act now it will be too late, they could be wrong and we could end up spending money to solve a problem that isn’t there and we will have a little less money in our pockets so can’t afford all the crap we buy that we don’t need anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 CO2 is a green house gas, fact and undisputed, we are increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, fact and undisputed So far so good. so we must be affecting global temperatures and climate. Doh, unsubstantiated assumption. We could believe some of the scientists and nothing bad will ever happen, if they are wrong it could be too late to reverse and the next generation suffer. We could believe another group of scientist that say if we don’t act now it will be too late, they could be wrong and we could end up spending money to solve a problem that isn’t there and we will have a little less money in our pockets so can’t afford all the crap we buy that we don’t need anyway. Or maybe we end up triggering the next ice age. It's just not as simple as you're trying to make out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 scientists will admit they are wrong when new evidence comes to light, unlike polititions and others with vested interesets in playing down the threat of climate change There was no new evidence. There was a published lie, which someone then pointed out wasn't true and was then retracted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Assuming we cannot know the truth of the matter completely, is it possible to intuit a sense of the risks we are running from the broad data that we can rely upon? As a starting point - is it possible to agree that there are homeostatic mechanisms in the biosphere that regulate the climate? Or not? ^ | Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.