• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

AGW and rising sea levels (3 Viewers)

Afaik, the NYT released the latest draft of the USG Climate Change Special Report, which is still in process.

The previous draft, dated December and posted in March, is here:
https://archive.org/details/CSSRTODALL

It will be interesting to see what changes, if any, are made from the earlier version.

The latest draft has increased from 413 to 673 pages, or 63% — no doubt reflecting the ever-growing consensus of those contributing to the report.

Ed
 
The latest draft has increased from 413 to 673 pages, or 63% — no doubt reflecting the ever-growing consensus of those contributing to the report.

Not so much that, I would think, than a reflection of the ever-accumulating and increasingly convincing evidence in support of AGW. . ..
 
Afaik, the NYT released the latest draft of the USG Climate Change Special Report, which is still in process.

The previous draft, dated December and posted in March, is here:
https://archive.org/details/CSSRTODALL

It will be interesting to see what changes, if any, are made from the earlier version.

etudiant,

I ran across the attached article that addresses your question and is well worth reading. It takes a bit of head scratching, but that's the challenge in understanding how experts lie with statistics. The report is convoluted, indeed.

Overall, the report presents "Key Findings" with descriptions of subjective confidence ratings and outcome likelihoods. The aggregation methodology is presented on pg. 8, with a table of confidence rating categories and likelihood ranges on pg. 14. (see attachment) It is basically an extension of the IPCC methodology fabricated years ago out of whole cloth.

Leaving domain content aside (i.e., the underlying climate research materials), the much-debated methods for aggregating probabilistic data fall under the rubric of mathematical decision theory, which is a subset of quantitative psychology and related fields, e.g., econometrics, and in this case specifically Bayesian inference. Such expertise does not appear to be represented among the authors.

From that perspective, my own appraisal is that the opinion blending methodology underlying the report is basically a cruel joke. It may appear to be sophisticated and correct to the lay reader, but unfortunately that's what shams are all about.

Ed
 

Attachments

  • US Climate Report Edits Out Highly Embarrassing Section _ NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT.pdf
    925.3 KB · Views: 85
  • Pgs 12 and 14.pdf
    409.8 KB · Views: 87
Of conspiracy theories (and the accompanying unscholarly language) there's no end! AGWers aren't just wrong, they're liars and scammers in service of some vaguely (if at all) specified "political" agenda.

Homewood, for God's sake, there's a source for you!!
 
Last edited:
Of conspiracy theories (and the accompanying unscholarly language) there's no end! AGWers aren't just wrong, they're liars and scammers in service of some vaguely (if at all) specified "political" agenda.

Homewood, for God's sake, there's a source for you!!

Fugl, that's unworthy of you.
Ad hominem in an argument is not the way.

Elkcub objected to the methodology used, not the data.
 
Fugl, that's unworthy of you.
Ad hominem in an argument is not the way.

Elkcub objected to the methodology used, not the data.

I'm at a loss to understand the relevance of your comment to what I've said in my post. What in it strikes you as "ad hominem" (not the reference to Homewood, surely, but if so I plead guilty!) and, for that matter, what are the conspiracy theories branding the entire AGW "community" with self-interested motives (which elkcub has done more than once in his posts), but the argumentum ad hominem writ large?
 
Last edited:
I'm at a loss to understand the relevance of your comment to what I've said in my post. What in it strikes you as "ad hominem" (not the reference to Homewood, surely, but if so I plead guilty!) and, for that matter, what are the conspiracy theories branding the entire AGW "community" with self-interested motives (which elkcub has done more than once in his posts), but the argumentum ad hominem writ large?

Don't you see that starting with the statement 'Of conspiracy theories...' and then mocking Homewood, presumably one of the references, might be seen as an Ad hominem attack rather than a measured response?

I saw nothing in Elkcub's posting about conspiracy, at most a claim that the document expressed conclusions not clearly supported by the actual evidence.
Having participated in some of these advisory group processes, that does not surprise in the least. Indeed, it is the default course for committees, to support the existing theme.
 
Don't you see that starting with the statement 'Of conspiracy theories...' and then mocking Homewood, presumably one of the references, might be seen as an Ad hominem attack rather than a measured response?

I saw nothing in Elkcub's posting about conspiracy, at most a claim that the document expressed conclusions not clearly supported by the actual evidence.
Having participated in some of these advisory group processes, that does not surprise in the least. Indeed, it is the default course for committees, to support the existing theme.

Here's how Homewood concludes his article, the only source cited by Elkcub (other than a short excerpt on statistical matters from the draft report).

"It was imperative therefore that this information be suppressed.

This new piece of evidence proves beyond doubt that the purpose of this latest climate report is a purely political one, designed to get across a particular message, regardless of the actual facts."

If that isn't a conspiracy theory, I don't know what is! And one that Elkcub isn't entirely unsympathetic to as you would see for yourself if you took the trouble to read through his earlier postings to this long and contentious thread.

[All this being said, I have respect for Elkcub--though we disagree on a lot of things--and would be uncomfortable with further discussion of his views when he's here to defend them himself (if he so wishes, of course).]
 
Last edited:
..
--Paul Krugman

All one needs to read....

This 'economist' proclaimed that the stock market would immediately implode with the election of DJT....
Most of us know how that is going....the markets have been astronomical. The economy is breaking records right now.

Sounds about right, Krugman is a loony fave of the progressive left. BFF with Fugs.

And babbling about 'skeptics arguing in bad faith' is rich indeed.
 
Last edited:
What a preposterous article...'could'...'might'...."scientists think"...not a modicum of proof of anything. 'Melting ice might 'trigger' an eruption.' Laughable.

Time to wake up and smell the lava.

Ed
 

Attachments

  • Underwater Volcanoes.pdf
    489.6 KB · Views: 85
  • FisherWheat2010_SeamountFluxes.pdf
    831.2 KB · Views: 73
Last edited:
I don't have to "smell the lava" to get it.
Personally I regard volcanoes as the 2nd biggest cause of climate change, behind the Sun.

But somehow trying to tie "AGW" to eruptions in Antarctica is ridiculous.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top