Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

[geo]

Speaking of droughts and similar natural calamities, the IPCC in 2005 predicted that warming would displace 50 million "climate refugees" by 2010.

What year is it?

What exactly does the IPCC state? It probably uses language—like "could" or "might"—to underscore the uncertainties involved.

[ant]

Those are great probabilistic scientific words, huh?

Are you concerned about your future?
Let me know: i am a fotune teller. I can create a personal horoscope that's exceptionally accurate.
You'll be coming back for more.

By the way, the IPCC has moved that prediction to 2020.
So, it may come true after all.
If not, there's always 2025 and 2030

[geo]

Those are great probabilistic scientific words, huh?

Are you concerned about your future?
Let me know: i am a fotune teller. I can create a personal horoscope that's exceptionally accurate.
You'll be coming back for more.

By the way, the IPCC has moved that prediction to 2020.
So, it may come true after all.
If not, there's always 2025 and 2030

I thought we already established that the IPCC is more of a political body? But regardless, it would be interesting to see the precise language being used. How disingenuous is the IPCC?

[ant]

I can appreciate the concern over climate change and trend indications that point to a warming planet.
But the IPCCs broadcasting "predictions" of massive refugee doomsday scenarios?

That seems very close to a mixture of science and propaganda.

But of course if you question that you can be branded a denielist of the same kind as those that deny the Holocaust.
Only an old fool, a very old and myopic old fool, would ever try that rhetorical tactic.

[geo]

I can appreciate the concern over climate change and trend indications that point to a warming planet.
But the IPCCs broadcasting "predictions" of massive refugee doomsday scenarios?

That seems very close to a mixture of science and propaganda.

Certainly the IPCC, being a quasi-political body, does delve into propaganda. However, this article suggests the annual report is actually becoming more cautious and backing off making alarmist predictions. For example, the 2014 report debunks its own previous predictions of climate refugees.

Here's an excerpt:

“The current alarmist predictions of massive flows of so-called ‘environmental refugees’ are not supported by past experiences of responses to droughts and extreme weather. Predictions for future migration flows are tentative at best.”

As the IPCC delves deeper into the science and responds to criticisms, it shows an ability for self-correction. This inspires more confidence and makes it a more credible organization.

Also, whether or not warming trends turn out to be manmade, the IPCC seems to be doing pretty important work here, preparing us for possible future droughts and food problems arising from a warmer planet. According to the article, the IPCC report is becoming more nuanced and less alarmist as time goes on.

"The world is more complicated, the scientists who prepared the draft conclude. The lesson of their report is that climate change will be implicated in a vast array of global ills, but it will rarely be the sole cause. . . . The message is clear. We may not be able to make hard and fast predictions, but prudency requires that we prepare for the worst."

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/un_climate ... ions/2750/

[ant]

The scientists who prepared the draft concluded the world is more complicated?!

I could have told them that. And I'm just a janitor!

Nice find.

[ant]

On a different note, there seems to be a state of mind here that echoes religiosity, and the continued psychological need for a divine guidance. Naturalists are perhaps oblivious to the parallels:

Sinful guilt, repentance, and salvation

Because there is a spiritual vacancy in naturalism, it looks to continue the sin of guilt by other means.
For the religious environmentalist, Mankind has sinned against the environment: he has corrupted the natural world by committing willful polluting acts against it.

Mankind is now being called to repent and change his evil polluting ways. Anyone who refuses to accept this guilt and repent is demonized.

Ennvironmental salvation can only happen by accepting that Mankind has the ability to save itself from his sinful nature.

The philosophy of naturalism displaces a God and replaces a savior with himself.

[ant]

The Woods Hole study shows how airplanes flying into winds made stronger by both natural climate variability and man-made global warming will in turn make global warming even worse. The resulting additional greenhouse emissions from airplanes could increase total global emissions by 0.03 percent as roundtrip flight times across the globe increase, according to the study.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... er+Feed%29


Nice, huh?

Anthropogenic warming contribute will contribute to flight delays.

[Taylor]

The world is more complicated, the scientists who prepared the draft conclude. The lesson of their report is that climate change will be implicated in a vast array of global ills, but it will rarely be the sole cause. . . . The message is clear. We may not be able to make hard and fast predictions, but prudency requires that we prepare for the worst."

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/un_climate ... ions/2750/

I take the article at face value, When it comes to climate variables, the debate seems to be coming down to Earth, That there is no room for the extreme's presented by the alarmist camp or the denialist/rejectionist, should be the accepted norm. The appearance of backpedaling doesn't disprove causal correlation but rather it demonstrates the flexibility of method to correct inconsistency of conduct. The checks and balances are there, sometimes their just slow in coming, Better late than never.

[ant]

but rather it demonstrates the flexibility of method to correct inconsistency of conduct

What exactly does inconsistency of conduct mean in the context of climate science, Taylor?

This isnt about flexibility of method, Taylor. It's about making false predictions and not ever being held accountable for them because falsification no longer matters.