by KaiserJeep » Thu 29 Mar 2018, 22:47:24
One. More. Time.
AGW/CC is a theory that has been advanced to explain why the world is warming at faster than the expected rate. The theory has supporters and detractors. In reality, perhaps a few hundred people on this planet are qualified to have valid opinions. If your primary education is as a climate scientist, and your career work is in analyzing climate, then you would have a valid opinion on this matter. I do not believe that I described any Peak Oil Forum member with those words, but if you want to correct me, do so by stating your qualifications.
Anybody else, including you or me or your Great Uncle Harry, is an amatuer without the education, the knowledge, and even the need to know whether the AGW/CC theory is correct.
The IPCC is the main international body concerned with investigating the AGW/CC theory. It issues periodic "Assessment Reports", the most recent being AR5, published in 2014. Prior to that, AR4 was published in 2007. AR6 will be published in 2019, after work completes which began in 2017. The IPCC publishes BOTH the AR's and a "Summary for Policymakers" report to go with each one.
Now for the white elephant in the room, which most of you have been ignoring. The IPCC does NOT attempt to state whether AGW/CC is real or not. What it actually does - only in the summary report - is state the majority opinion and the minority opinion from it's members. The difference would be that between AR4 and AR5, the majority opinion (i.e. AGW/CC is real) and the minority opinion (i.e. AGW/CC is unproven) changed significantly.
BOTH AR4 and AR5 had majority opinions that AGW/CCC was real and a concern. However, based on actual IPCC summaries, the minority opinion modestly increased in AR5.
Now heres my own opinion, which is no better than yours, and no worse. The IPCC membership is large, but relatively few work on these reports, and I think the process for vetting report contributors is a good one. Yet the scientific concensus from IPCC contributors is tilting away from "AGW/CC is real", somewhat. If I am understanding WHY this is so, it is because the climate modellers have identified more natural contributions to actual warming, and therefore the modeled amount attributed to humans has declined.
Now here's the difference between those scientists and complete ignoramuses. THEY (the scientists) do not talk in absolutes, they only talk of probabilities. The ignoramuses of the world flatly describe AGW/CC as (to use their own ignorant words) certain, confirmed, real, a major concern, etc. They are also want to describe those who support the minority scientific opinion on the topic of AGW/CC as trolls or retards or even worse.
The final word: The theory of AGW/CC would be confirmed or disproven in another 200 years or so. However, it's a moot point because we don't have the fossil fuels to burn for that long. Meanwhile, there is another checkpoint coming in about 18 months when AR6 is published by the IPCC. IF (as I suspect) the AGW/CC concensus has decined further and the minority opinion increases again, what are you ignoramuses gonna do then?
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001
Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.
Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0