Reporting of the Climate Change Report

[johnb]

I'm intrigued that the Daily Politics programme reported that the latest Climate Change Report concluded that it is 95% certain that at least 50% of global warming since the 1950s is man made. (This is in line with what is on the BBC News website.)

However, on PM it was said that the report concluded that it is 95% certain that global warming is man made.

The difference might seem minor but the implications of the "at least 50%" are dramatic and fundamental to the effectiveness of future decisions by policy makers.

This seems typical of BBC news programmes.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

plus on the news channel they had a sceptic, presumably to balance out the good science with bad ...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

plus on the news channel they had a sceptic, presumably to balance out the good science with bad ...

:biggrin: :ale::ela:

[Flay]

Yes, the sceptic said that they hadn't done controlled trials.

They would need other identical Earths in parallel universes.

Does anyone know where to find these so we can set up the trials?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

but there would still be film music all over R3 ..........

[teamsaint]

My worry about the IPCC is that it was set up by Governments for governments.

Control and money are usually close to the heart of government interests.

[Richard Tarleton]

plus on the news channel they had a sceptic, presumably to balance out the good science with bad ...

:laugh: As was pointed out this morning - the sceptics brought on for "balance" aren't climate scientists at all, they're people like Nigel Lawson who's a - what is he, exactly? As one of the interviewees pointed out, the BBC and doubtless other news media insist on seeing the debate as entertainment, i.e. you have to have a fight. Rather than as information.

[Mr Pee]

Surely this thread should be in the Politics and Current affairs dungeon? :erm:

[johnb]

The BBC's idea of probing journalism is to invite two people with opposing views to talk across each other for three minutes. <smiley for sighing>

[johnb]

Oh dear!

I was mainly commenting on the BBC's reporting and thought that would be allowed in the main part of the forum.

For anyone interested, the actual para in the report that is the focus of the news reports is:

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface
temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-
induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.

(Perhaps someone would explain to me the apparent disparity between the first and second sentences.)

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Professor Richard Lindzen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen) has a terse commentary on the SPM

I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.

Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability. Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.

In attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with their being nothing to be alarmed about. It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.

Of course, this comment has not been peer-reviewed . . .

[amateur51]

Professor Richard Lindzen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen) has a terse commentary on the SPM


Of course, this comment has not been peer-reviewed . . .

From what I've read, would it be fair to describe Lindzen as a confirmed contrarian?

[french frank]

Professor Richard Lindzen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen) has a terse commentary on the SPM


Of course, this comment has not been peer-reviewed . . .

In other words, the report has not persuaded that confirmed sceptic to change his mind.

[MrGongGong]

In other words, the report has not persuaded that confirmed sceptic to change his mind.

So he must be right then ?
Because everyone else is only motivated by money
after all , there's nothing else that motivates people is there ?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

amateur51: define contrarian
french frank: define sceptic

But then we have to remember that Lindzen, a scientist, is merely commenting on a document (which hasn't been peer-reviewed) written entirely by politicians.