However, there are at least two glaring types of unscientific claims in the climate change debacle. One type is a claim of impending disaster based on negative and biased reports which ignore alternative more positive interpretations which are also based on peer reviewed research and empirical data.
Nonsense, as usual. If it's a scientific publication, it has an objective, like (dis)proving a hypothesis, or expanding on earlier work. It doesn't have to (dis)proof other aspects than those under review. It might mention them, if useful for the study at hand, or point to a reference list. If it's a blog by some unqualified reviewer (e.g. someone with a degree in Sociology making claims about geophysical phenomenae), who really cares (beyond that it might entertain an interesting thought or two)?
The other type is the assertion of certainty about impending CO2-caused disaster which is not based upon any sound empirical data, but based upon flawed computer models.
I could list the major points I recall making which I believe are supported by evidence, or claims by others which are not supported due to an accepted lack of evidence, but it would take too long to review all my comments, so I'll mention and repeat just one major point for the moment. Correct me if I'm wrong.
(1) The latest IPCC report, the AR5, admitted and stated unambiguously that there is 'low confidence' that extreme weather events such as cyclones, hurricanes, floods and droughts, have increased in frequency and intensity, globally, during the past century or so since CO2 levels have been rising.
Selective cherry picking at best, and I still doubt whether you understand the difference between the Statistical concepts "Confidence level" and "Probability". Low confidence is a metric of the observed dataset (or projection), not about the likelihood of an event.
Here's (attached) a summary table from page 126 of the original PDF report (marked page 110 in the document itself), with more detailed explanations in the original document (nuances and regional differences/exceptions), for different (past, current, and future) timeframes:
-
Warmer and/or fewer
cold days and nights over most land areas
the scores are Likely, Very likely, or Virtually certain
- Warmer and/or more frequent
hot days and nights over most land areas
the scores are Likely, Very likely, or Virtually certain
- Heavy precipitation events.
Increase in the frequency, intensity, and/or amount of heavy precipitation the scores are Likely, or More likely than not.
- *
Increases in intensity and/or duration of drought.
the scores are Likely, or More likely than not.
- *
Increases in intense cyclone activity the scores are Virtually certain (was likely in some regions), More likely than not, and Likely.
-
Increased incidence and/or magnitude of extreme high sea level.
the scores are Likely, and Very likely.
*) Low confidence
does not mean unlikely, it only tells something about the available dataset.
Likelihood is important because it is a factor in
Risk assessment. It's the multiplication of 'level of impact' and the 'likelihood' that it will occur, that affects a.o. human life. Confidence levels do not affect human life, they're only affected by datasets.
These statements are found in the Technical Summary of the Working Group 1 of the IPCC report. These are scientific assessments from peer-reviewed research papers in the field of climate science, rather than political distortions. Do you agree?
See the above and the attached chart.
Cheers,
Bart
