IPCC Bungling Twerps

[d000hg]

How can you sort out uncertainty in any scientific model? Since we can't unify quantum mechanics and relativity, the basics of physics, why do you think science deals in certainty?
All scientific theories are eventually modified, some even overthrown, what we have is degrees of certainty based on the preponderance of evidence.
It's a little tiring to be repeating this basic stuff time after time for cretins like yourself.

Does "sort out" mean "quantify" in this context? Regardless there is a big difference between inherent uncertainty, and introduced uncertainty.

[vetran]

I cannot really call it an argument but at least you gave it a go

There are a lot of Unknown, Unknowns that Unknowns like SAS don't know.

HTH BIDI - Cretin (apparently).



Oh now I feel like I have raised the quality of the debate to whole new levels that mere mortals couldn't possibly understand.



As per my last thread on this, the only certain thing about climate change is that politicians will tax us heavily because of it whilst doing diddly squat to fix it. We are probably screwing our planet royally but as the party donors are making money out of it I doubt anything will be done about it until they set sail in a space ark leaving us proles to burn.

[pjclarke]

The latest IPCC report is now admiting natural factors are as powerful as CO2.

You are clearly an interpreter of interpretations.

If the low solar cycle is causing the flattening (everyone knows the cooling is coming unless you're as thick 2 short plonkers), could it be that the unusually high solar cycle might have caused the warming in the first place.

You might want to read the paragraph again, about half the reduction is due to natural variability, probably primarily the La Nina phenomenon bringing cooler water to the surface, of the rest some is due to volcanoes adding aerosols to the atmosphere, and some due to the reduced solar irradiation. So they are attributing rather less than half of the hiatus to solar.

[EternalOptimist]

The IPCC lay out their evidence carefully here

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Now Delingpole has already admitted he hasn't read the primary sources (when challenged on this he claimed to have been "intellectually raped" - personally I think it's probably easy to rape an intellectual virgin ).
So unless he has specific items in that report he disagrees with and details, I would say he's talking bollux, wouldn't you?

BTW All this should be obvious to you. Unless you're JAC*

*Just Another Cretin, a handy acronym for CUK.

The ipcc don't have evidence. They are an idependant accumulator and presenter of the latest science. They should not be making a case, or taking sides.
The fact that you and others do not realise this is an indication of how far off course the ipcc has gone.
The fact that most of the chapters have been co written with wwf and other green organisations, and the fact that the chairman, pachuri, is on the payroll of green NGOs should worry an obviously intelligent bloke like you, sg