| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:cuts no ice | |
| Posted by: | Fraser Pearce | |
| Date/Time: | 30/06/08 14:39:00 |
| Stewart – Your posts here seem “excruciating” because you mistake opinion for fact. You’re sloganeering, Sir, interpolating and generalising. You start this thread by linking to an article on Arctic ice and then, after ignoring its precautionary ‘may well haves’, ‘coulds’, ‘ifs’ and ‘it’s not guaranteeds’, seem to cite this as evidence in favour of anthropogenic climate change. This is analytical overlay. Further in, you conflate global warming with anthropogenic global warming, present global warming as the only scenario for climate change, then throw creationism, religion and assorted threat multipliers into the mix. How can you be so sure then about this particular Arctic ice example, given the apparent scale of volcanic activity under the north polar ice cap hasn’t yet been factored into the models? Your conclusions may be right, they may be wrong, but do seem a tad premature. As for the IPCC’s projections being “based on known data”, ever wondered why the confidence intervals are 90%, not 95%? The IPCC doesn’t make climate predictions, but does make projections based on supposed future climate and emissions scenarios. Some have correlated, others not (presumably why your BBC link restricts itself to “surface temperature changes”). Even then, correlation isn’t necessarily causation. Things are far more nuanced than you describe, the science - as opposed to the reporting of it - less shrill and more precautionary. Just because people aren’t as alarmist as you, it doesn’t follow they don’t care or go around with their ‘fingers in their ears’ going “la la la till all the bad stuff goes away” (and you think you’re not being patronising?). When science is the basis of policy in the real world, accuracy and efficacy are more important than hyperbole. Good luck to you. |