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

[Interbane]

This exposes your ignorance re the difference between weather forecasting and CLIMATE model projections.

How does it expose my ignorance? If we aren't upset at failed predictions of our weather models, why should we be upset at failed predictions of climate models? Both of these types of models deal with contingent systems after all, which are unpredictable. Or is weather forecasting not considered science?

[ant]

You really have been ignoring my posts all this time, havent you?
As I said before, you are interested mostly in telling people that have differeces with your worldview (generally speaking) what you think, while largely ignoring what's being shared with you.

The IPCC has made a habit of turning model forecasting into PREDICTIONS of Armageddon (eg 50 million climate refugees by 2010) to place political pressures to adopt policies that are often economically improbable, if not impossible, and have serious consequences for the poor.

The projections the IPCC has continuously softened, or declared outright as inaccurate can never be falsified if all that needs to be done is a reworking of the data to project something similar. Is that not true?

You might be surprised at this, but I happen to trust the data that demonstrates a warming trend over a large timescale. And I agree with the basic physics that tell us we are a contributor to climate change.

Climate science is enormously complex. That's been admitted time and time again. At some point we need to trust the warming projections but think a little more carefully about what needs to be done and not act in haste.


There's some nonsense that I object to. One is the discouragement of open science. Another is the vilification and demonization of people that are not on board with alarmism, and because they arent theyre compared to those that denied the Holocaust ever happened. Thats what people like you and your friend Robert are in to. You in particular use dumb arguments like consensus science to muscle your way to victory.

[Interbane]

Climate science is enormously complex. That's been admitted time and time again. At some point we need to trust the warming projections but think a little more carefully about what needs to be done and not act in haste.

Why should we not act in haste? As long as our actions are toward equilibrium rather than overcorrection, it's the wisest course of action.

The IPCC has made a habit of turning model forecasting into PREDICTIONS of Armageddon (eg 50 million climate refugees by 2010)

The IPCC never made that prediction, that was UNEP. Why would the IPCC try to predict human behavior?

You in particular use dumb arguments like consensus science to muscle your way to victory.

I never relied on consensus to win any arguments, if you read back through my posts. Any argument we've had, I've cited studies and quoted experts. My point regarding the consensus, a long time ago and even today, is that is the heuristic I rely on most heavily to decide where I stand. And there isn't anything wrong with that, because the only other option is to become a climate scientist and draw your conclusion straight from the facts. Neither of us is a climate scientist, so the best either of us can do is rely on a heuristic. So if you have one that is more reliable, please share it.

[ant]

Interbane wrote:

The IPCC never made that prediction, that was UNEP. Why would the IPCC try to predict human behavior? 

Some nightmare scenarios are robustly defused. Past IPCC reports have warned that there might be as many as 50 million "climate refugees" around the world, who will flee drought, rising tides

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

Youre quite the Global Warming catastrophic politician, Interbane.

[Interbane]

Some nightmare scenarios are robustly defused. Past IPCC reports have warned that there might be as many as 50 million "climate refugees" around the world, who will flee drought, rising tides

Do you have a link to the study or report he is referring to? I want to know if they actually tried to predict human behavior.

[ant]

Some nightmare scenarios are robustly defused. Past IPCC reports have warned that there might be as many as 50 million "climate refugees" around the world, who will flee drought, rising tides

Do you have a link to the study or report he is referring to? I want to know if they actually tried to predict human behavior.

Email yale.edu. They have a fantastic department that offers analysis of climate change including what the IPPC reports, uh.., REPORTS on.
Kinda like what Ive provided you.

Either that, or just disbelieve what Yale stated.
Youve got a black belt in disbelief and are an opinionated lethal weapon.

[Interbane]

Either that, or just disbelieve what Yale stated.

C. Disbelieve what ant states.

[ant]

Either that, or just disbelieve what Yale stated.

C. Disbelieve what ant states.

Actually, ant didn't state there would be millions of climate refugees. The IPCC did, and Yale.edu commented on it.
You're being dishonest about it. It's not surprising. You've been dishonest before when you've been called out on something.

And why the cheap political semantic games here? Why have you been (cheaply) attempting to be deceptively clever by claiming the IPCC made no comment regarding the BEHAVIOR of people, as if it were some kind of Board of Psychological Studies - which would be nonsense, of course?

The IPCC PREDICTED there would be millions of human beings DISPLACED because of CATASTROPHIC climate change.

Of course you'd rather argue semantics rather than directly address what you were flat out dishonest about.

[Interbane]

The IPCC did, and Yale.edu commented on it.

Fred Pearce, you mean? Where is the original report? Why didn't he link it?

From everything I've read, the 50 million refugee prediction came from Norman Meyers, who was an adviser to the UN, speaking at a conference in 2005. I'm not playing semantics. Show me the report from the IPCC and prove me wrong. If you do, I'll admit it.

[ant]

The IPCC did, and Yale.edu commented on it.

Fred Pearce, you mean? Where is the original report? Why didn't he link it?

From everything I've read, the 50 million refugee prediction came from Norman Meyers, who was an adviser to the UN, speaking at a conference in 2005. I'm not playing semantics. Show me the report from the IPCC and prove me wrong. If you do, I'll admit it.

Before I do that let me jump to conclusions and telephone yale to ask them why they wrote what they did.

Random question: do you work for Fox News?