Good News: Great Barrier Reef Recovering Nicely!

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

What makes you think either statement is a typo?

Life experience

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Life experience

That would explain a lot of the unscientific balderdash you've been supplying us with.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Says who? I'm expecting that you haven't or won't read the latest IPCC report; so how do you know the dissenting positions haven't already been challenged and refuted, even if indirectly? Just because there isn't a tabbed large-print Q&A section addressing every published dissent doesn't mean they have not been considered.

Haven't read the entire report (you? ) but did take a look at what I thought could be the most likely place for rebuttals, namely Chapter 3: Human influence on the climate system. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/d...Chapter_03.pdf. Nothing that I could find, just doubling down on AR5 re: the degree of certainty that human forcings are mostly to blame. Section 3.3.1.2 covers upper-air temps and discusses the troposphere, but I couldn't find any references to discrepancies between surface vs. sat data, for e.g., only acknowledgements that models had overestimated atmospheric temps in many instances. But to the extent this may have been a nod to Spencer et al., I didn't see any follow-up discussion as to what this meant. The FAQ's at the end also didn't reveal the existence of any opinions other than the mainstream party line. Let me know if you (or anyone) finds something I missed.

Ridd also made the point in one of his interviews that the report did not include any such contrarian opinions. Post #266. Safe assumption you haven't watched and aren't willing to?

And once again - the IPCC isn't where these competing ideas get presented and fought over, the IPCC was set up to address the concerns of the overwhelming majority, and of the governments that were persuaded. If you want to see how the dissenting opinions have been presented and addressed, read the scientific journals.

Right. So as to insure they stay out of view of most of the public and their elected representatives. Got it.

Science isn't business. One seeks knowledge, one seeks profit. Nothing intrinsically evil about either; it's what they are supposed to be doing. But pretending that they are equally motivated to distort, lie, persuade is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous, so I'm glad I didn't state, imply, or even "pretend" any such thing. What I did say is that some well-known human motivators apply across the board, and climate science has become so politicized that all the incentives run in only one direction. This is why the closest thing we see to a study which failed to find linkage between CC and some physical event is a downgraded statement of "certainty" from "likely" to "maybe." I don't think there's many freshly-minted, aspiring climate scientists who get their degrees so they can go out to try and uncover evidence that it's all about natural forces.

[Hermia II]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

Except, not in this case!

Every word of it true, provable and logical, rational, reasonable response.


I could be equally rude about your last post, but frankly, it isn't worth the effort.


This is the problem with 'faith believers'.


They believe what they choose to believe, regardless of existential truth.

You simply don't want to accept the self-evident truths. That's OK.

No skin off my nose.

If you regard the IPCC-reports as "true" you have yet a lot to learn. Most of what they contain is based on their "models". These models are not science, they are predictions based on the parameters you put into them. You can prove anything with them and in retrospect they have never predicted anything which has actually happened.