New IPCC report is out

[_honorentheos]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/ ... -down/amp/

In related news, The National Review included an article showing the latest report is still being ignored or even criticised by the conservative right wing of the country. We are, in a word, screwed.

[_DoubtingThomas]

It would be a fools errand to blindly accept what any of these people are saying. All I can do is look at their arguments and make a determination for myself.

Bulls***! So what research studies have you read and analyzed? Do you understand all the variables and equations? So explain this equation to me! ΔF = αln(C/Co)

I remember the doomsday predictions from a decade ago, none of which have panned out.

The politicians are irrelevant! The actual scientists are not making any doomsday predictions for the 21st century! You really need to stop reading conservative propaganda.

Now explain ΔF = αln(C/Co).

[_DoubtingThomas]

He brings up limitations of the science that I don't see good answers to. .

For example? Let's get to the specifics! Tell me in your own words.

[_Res Ipsa]

Lindzen is a credible guy that offers a compelling argument.

Lindzen is a credible guy, but his arguments are not compelling according to his MIT colleagues.

http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/fea ... dent-trump

Lindzen is not a credible voice on climate change. He published a couple of papers with contrarian theories that could not be replicated. His proposed magic iris that would open up to transport heat away from the surface never existed.

Every field of science had its cranks and outliers. When you cite some guy’s PhD thesis or op-Ed’s by fringe scientists, you are ignoring the actual science.

[Guest]

Now explain ΔF = αln(C/Co).

I believe delta F is "forcing," which is CO2 versus radiant heat absorption. If not mistaken I believe this is one of many equations which attempts to represent the relationship, alpha and Co are arbitrary constants. Please, go on, I'm quite interested to see where this goes. [REMOVED INAPPROPRIATE COMMENT]

[_Res Ipsa]

Now explain ΔF = αln(C/Co).

I believe delta F is "forcing," which is CO2 versus radiant heat absorption. If not mistaken I believe this is one of many equations which attempts to represent the relationship, alpha and Co are arbitrary constants. Please, go on, I'm quite interested to see where this goes. And I figure anything that serves to distract you from your usual child molestation interests is a service to humanity. When not defending statutory rape are you out there doing climate research?

I thought it was only liberals that engaged in personal attack. Weird.

[Guest]

.

[_DoubtingThomas]

I thought it was only liberals that engaged in personal attack. Weird.

Exactly!

[_Morley]

When you can't refute the argument, try to change the subject and go after the character of the individual making the argument. Is that the playbook?

[_Water Dog]

Lindzen is not a credible voice on climate change. He published a couple of papers with contrarian theories that could not be replicated. His proposed magic iris that would open up to transport heat away from the surface never existed.

This versus this.

Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983[1] until his retirement in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[2] He was a lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has criticized the scientific consensus about climate change[3] and what he has called "climate alarmism."[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Every field of science had its cranks and outliers. When you cite some guy’s PhD thesis or op-Ed’s by fringe scientists, you are ignoring the actual science.

Have you been to grad school? If so then you understand how a thesis works. You are oddly dismissing the quality of this particular man's work, which I have seen no reason to be suspicious of, while simultaneously casting doubt over the whole institution. If this guy's PhD is total rubbish, who's the say the other guys PhDs aren't as well?