It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How much of the new IPCC report on climate change is factual?

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 12:33 PM
link   
The IPCC released its new report, AR6, on climate change yesterday. The full report is available here , as well as a Summary for Policymakers (SPM) and a Technical Summary. The full report is a nearly-4,000-page PDF.

We had a member here post a thread in the Fragile Earth forum on the report and how dire the situation is. Was actually a decent thread for a while. The climate alarmists are gleefully seizing on the new report to spread more gloom and doom. But how much of the science is really settled?

There's actually a really easy way we can analyze this report. When you start reading, on page 5 of the PDF you will find this note:

I like the Assessed Likelihood ratings, even though there's too many of them, which makes them cumbersome to use. At least they're precisely defined. Although the application of them is still arbitrary and subjective.

What about the confidence levels? They don't appear to be actually defined anywhere in the entire document, which is odd. You can check this fairly easily by running a search through the PDF for "very low confidence," which only appears a handful of times, none of which defines the term. Presumably, anywhere the others are defined, that one would be defined. So they don't appear to be defined, at least not here. I did some cursory internet searching and the best I could come up with was this guidance for authors of AR5, the last IPCC report that came out in 2014:
AR5 authors' guide - PDF download link

The confidence levels aren't actually defined in that either. The authors are provided with an assessment matrix to help them decide what confidence level to rate their findings at:

So the confidence levels are entirely subjective and vague. And then there's this little gem in the authors' guide about confidence levels:

Presentation of findings with “low” and “very low” confidence should be reserved for areas of major concern, and the reasons for their presentation should be carefully explained.

So not only are the confidence levels never really defined, but authors are baited into assigning higher confidence levels because, if they don't, their work may not be included in the report. You have all these scientists doing studies that want to get their names and their work into this report, and this kind of guidance incentivizes them to overstate their confidence level in their findings. Especially when the scale is subjective and the burden of proof is on explaining why you're not sure instead of why you're sure about your findings. This is the complete opposite of scientific. Inconclusive results are part of science and shouldn't be excluded. Excluding them introduces a bias into the report. But anyway...

So where am I going with all of this? Well, these terms are used to define how sure the scientists are about their conclusions. Their conclusions are derived from data they've collected. The veracity of the data is assessed elsewhere, using scientific means like margins of error. In some cases, these can be precisely calculated, with no subjectivity. What we have here, though, are the subjective conclusions drawn from the data. Basically, "what do the data mean" and "how sure are you of that?"

Of all these different evaluative terms, between the confidence levels and assessed likelihoods, do any of them represent established fact? Facts are things that are known for certain. Not you're 50% sure or even 90% sure. The only term in either of these scales that could be represented as fact is "Virtually Certain," which is defined here as 99-100% likelihood. Yes, this happened because of x, or yes, this will happen because of y, for sure.

There are a LOT of assessments in this report. All of these evaluative terms are used almost 9,000 times combined throughout the entire report. Of those, how many assessments are they "virtually certain" about?

460.

Out of 8,929. That's 5.2% of the assessments.

Settled. Science.

But okay, most of the rest of it must be things they're almost certain about right? No, actually. I searched all the terms and made a cute little spreadsheet:

On the left is the breakdown of all the occurrences, and on the right I grouped them. As you can see, only about half of the assessments are at anything resembling a high level of certainty. And that's with me being generous and including "high confidence" as a "pretty sure" term. It probably belongs in the "we don't know" terms, somewhere around "likely." You could make the argument that none of the confidence levels represent a high level of certainty because they're not clearly defined and there's a clear bias to overestimate confidence, but I gave them the benefit of the doubt.

No matter how you analyze this, it looks bad. If you look at just the levels of confidence, 56% of the assessments are medium confidence or lower. If you look at just the assessed likelihoods, only 55% of the assessments are very, extremely, or exceptionally likely/unlikely (including virtually certain.) Yeah, like the 2000 election, if you keep counting them different ways, eventually you can probably get the outcome you want. That doesn't mean it's reliable or correct.

Obviously, this is a pretty simplistic analysis (ironic considering a lot of the people who are going to reply to this won't have even finished reading it.) But another point you have to consider, is that not all of these assessments are made in a vacuum. Many of them are based on prior assessments. So if you have one assessment that you have Very High confidence in, but it's based on a bunch of other conclusions that are only Medium confidence or "likely" (which could only be 66% sure--not very sure), how reliable is that Very High confidence assessment?

Climate science is a house of cards. It's subjective conclusions, built on guesswork, balanced on assumptions, all injected with bias and peer pressure. Very little of it is rock-solid fact. That doesn't mean the climate isn't changing. That doesn't mean all the scientists are involved in a globalist plot. But they're not heroes that are gonna save the world because they know everything, either. Their own assessments show they don't actually know much. This is far from settled science. The idea that there's no doubt or no question or no uncertainty in any of this and anyone who questions it is a "science denier" is absolutely, completely baseless. I have very high confidence in that assessment.

**It's worth noting that, statistically, the 95% confidence level is considered the standard for the physical sciences. This isn't precisely the same kind of metric as what was analyzed here, but it's worth a mention.**
edit on 10 8 21 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Methodology:

If you want to reproduce these numbers, here's how I did it:

Once you open the PDF, you can hit CTRL-SHIFT-F to open the Advanced Find function. There, you can search for each individual evaluative term, and it will tell you how many times each term appears in the entire report.

From there, you have a little more work to do. The way Adobe's search functions, all the instances of the term “low confidence,” for example, also includes all the instances of the term “very low confidence.” So, you whatever number you got for your “very low confidence” search, you have to subtract that number from the number you got when you search “low confidence.” Do the same with “high/very high confidence.” And the same thing happens with terms that include “likely” and “unlikely.”

I also subtracted 3 from each of the assessed likelihood terms, because they are defined 3 times throughout the report.

If you wanted to go even further (I did not do this because I started to, then I realized it wouldn't really impact the findings so it was a waste of time), you'd have to dig through each occurrence of each term and find where there are duplicates. Some of the assessments in the body of the full report are repeated in the Summary for Policymakers and the Technical Summary. However, the numbers are relatively small, and they're only going to change the outcome of any of the calculations by a few percent. The main point of my OP would not be affected by that.

Finally, the way I grouped the terms together is obviously subjective, but if anything I was generous to the climate alarmists. Some might argue that “likely,” for example, could mean they're 95% or 100% certain, since it is defined as 66-100% likelihood. However, that fails to consider that there is another rating for 90-100% certain (“very likely”) and if an assessment could be rated at that level, it would have been. Scientists have no incentive to underestimate their certainty. As I've shown, they were actually encouraged to overestimate. So “likely,” in reality, represents 66-89%. That's why it's a “we don't know” term. If you're not sure, you don't know. At best 89% sure is not something you know.

**I know some of the climate alarmists will take issue with my analysis because it's basically just a survey. That's also ironic, considering the "97% of scientists agree" myth is based on a survey of climate studies where they didn't even read the studies, they just skimmed through the abstracts and threw out more than half of the studies because those studies said no conclusions could be drawn. Again, inconclusive studies are part of science. If you're ignoring them because they don't fit the narrative, that's not science.**



posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 12:38 PM
link   
My knee-jerk gut reaction...

¡NADA!



posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 12:39 PM
link   
How much of the new IPCC report on climate change is factual?

My guess is NONE.

They been faking climate snip long before they thought about covid.

Those # 's have hijacked science to push their political agenda.

Climate-Vaccines-Biology.

The trifecta of cult of ideology.



posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 12:40 PM
link   
The more something is emphasized, the more likely it's bulls#t 😃



posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Hey something we can completely agree on...no gymnastics required



posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
How much of the new IPCC report on climate change is factual?

My guess is NONE.

They been faking climate snip long before they thought about covid.

Those # 's have hijacked science to push their political agenda.

Climate-Vaccines-Biology.

The trifecta of cult of ideology.


Instead of guessing, you could have read the OP.



posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Disclaimer: The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is the approved version from the 14th session of Working Group I and 54th Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and remains subject to final copy-editing and layout.


Translation.

For polical hacks BY political hacks.

We're ALL gonna die! If we don't spend money we don't have, and destroy cheap energy.



posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: neo96
How much of the new IPCC report on climate change is factual?

My guess is NONE.

They been faking climate snip long before they thought about covid.

Those # 's have hijacked science to push their political agenda.

Climate-Vaccines-Biology.

The trifecta of cult of ideology.


Instead of guessing, you could have read the OP.


Why even bother?

Policy makers don't even read their own 2,700 page bills.
edit on 10-8-2021 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 12:52 PM
link   
The Idea that the earth will be somewhere between 1 to 2 degrees warmer by 2100 is most likely going to happen unless we get something like a few big volcanos and then we can go back into a mini ice age too.

So the main point is how much does humans influence it all. I think the best thing I have seen is where we can say the earth is in a balance with CO2 and humans add about 5 to 7% more each year to the total, so due to humans there is a slight increase every year to CO2, and I believe that is what the data shows.

Then we get into the whole how much does CO2 actually affect earth's temperature? And that can be all over the place as to what expert you ask.

The interesting thing with the Paris accord is whether they meet all their goals or meet none the outcome is still 1 to 2 degrees by 2100. So we can pay 10s of trillions or basically zero and be within 1 degree or less in the end...lol



posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




The Idea that the earth will be somewhere between 1 to 2 degrees warmer by 2100 is most likely going to happen unless we get something like a few big volcanos and then we can go back into a mini ice age too.


That's what the jacksnips at the IPCC call 'Code red'.

Code Red.

Even IF true China is still the worlds largest polluter that just waged biological warfare on the entire world, and no one took them to task.

Simple fact is we'll all be dead before that magic number.



posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96


Disclaimer: The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is the approved version from the 14th session of Working Group I and 54th Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and remains subject to final copy-editing and layout.


Translation.

For polical hacks BY political hacks.

We're ALL gonna die! If we don't spend money we don't have, and destroy cheap energy.

The SPM is useless anyway. They know not one legislator or executive is gonna read the entire report, so they can put whatever they want in the SPM and they'd never know the difference.
edit on 10 8 21 by face23785 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10 8 21 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

Even IF true China is still the worlds largest polluter that just waged biological warfare on the entire world, and no one took them to task.

Simple fact is we'll all be dead before that magic number.



Since we are already into the 1 to 2 degrees we might see 1 more degree or less on top since we started this back in 1975. The funny part is they also say the earth has not seen 2 degrees warmer in 2 million years..lol OK ice age anyone, or mini ice age that lasted over 500 years and we just got out in the 1850s?

The last ice age started 2.5 million years ago, hit a peek 18,000 years ago, and we started to get out of it 11,000 to 13,000 years ago, so what should the "normal" temperature of the earth be without an ice age?


edit on 10-8-2021 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The Idea that the earth will be somewhere between 1 to 2 degrees warmer by 2100 is most likely going to happen unless we get something like a few big volcanos and then we can go back into a mini ice age too.

So the main point is how much does humans influence it all. I think the best thing I have seen is where we can say the earth is in a balance with CO2 and humans add about 5 to 7% more each year to the total, so due to humans there is a slight increase every year to CO2, and I believe that is what the data shows.

Then we get into the whole how much does CO2 actually affect earth's temperature? And that can be all over the place as to what expert you ask.


Correct. This report says it's basically settled that humans are causing all of the warming. But I've yet to see that proven anywhere. If you ask anyone to prove it, all the say is "But we're putting out x amount of pollution, that has to be having an impact!" That doesn't prove we're causing all the warming, or even a significant portion of it.


The interesting thing with the Paris accord is whether they meet all their goals or meet none the outcome is still 1 to 2 degrees by 2100. So we can pay 10s of trillions or basically zero and be within 1 degree or less in the end...lol


Yes. When the Paris accords were first signed, I remember seeing a few environmentalists on TV pissed off because all these media morons were sucking Obama's dick like he saved the world, and the IPCC's own estimates were that the Paris accords would have virtually no impact. This report confirms that.

Same idiots that were acting like when Trump pulled us out of the Paris deal it was the end of the world. In reality, it had no impact.

Not only is very little of this based on fact, the people pushing it absolutely abhor facts.



posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Climate chicken littles can go pound sand.

Now they're taking their talking points from movies.

If they're going to steal a plot.

2012 where everyone runs to China to save them.
edit on 10-8-2021 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Climate chicken littles can go pound sand.

Now they're taking their talking points from movies.

If they're going to steal a plot.

2012 where everyone runs to China to save them.


Something tells me CBS is gonna wind up on this list.

50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

It only runs up to 2019. There were a number of "by 2020" predictions that didn't come true as well. Here's one:
Glacier National Park removing signs claiming glaciers will be gone by 2020 because glaciers are still there



posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I don't understand why people find this so hard to believe.

For decades now humanity has been pumping the atmosphare with toxic gasses, from the fumes from your car to the fumes from the local coal fired powerstation. We have destroyed natural habitats for food, we have over fished, we have planted trees in stupid places that then burn out of control. Humanity, like it or not, has totally fu@ked this planet, we are all to blame and i personally think its too late now to do anything really about it.

So you can either dig your heads in the sand and support the few wealthy elite who are benifing from ass fu@cking the planet or accept it and try to make some changes to help delay the inevitable for your grandchildren.

The IPCC report probably is only half the truth, i think the reality is that they know we're screwed and could be on the cusp of an extinction event.

Simples.
edit on 10-8-2021 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

Yes. When the Paris accords were first signed, I remember seeing a few environmentalists on TV pissed off because all these media morons were sucking Obama's dick like he saved the world, and the IPCC's own estimates were that the Paris accords would have virtually no impact. This report confirms that.

Same idiots that were acting like when Trump pulled us out of the Paris deal it was the end of the world. In reality, it had no impact.

Not only is very little of this based on fact, the people pushing it absolutely abhor facts.


It is actually in their points to keep the earth within 1 to 2 degrees of preindustrial which is around 14c. We are about 14.8c right now and somewhere between 15 and 16c by 2100 if we do nothing, so by their own words they meet their goals no matter what we do...lol



posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

So you can either dig your heads in the sand and support the few wealthy elite who are benifing from ass fu@cking the planet or accept it and try to make some changes to help delay the inevitable for your grandchildren.

Simples.


What exactly would be the inevitable, and what do we need to do right now?



posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




I don't understand why people find this so hard to believe


Because it's being pushed by pathological liars,con artists,politicians and other slime of humanity.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join