Comment by kaybe | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kaybe | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

A lot of care was taken in the wording of the last IPCC report to communicate what findings have which level of confidence. The range is from 'virtually certain' to unsure, and yes, some parts are indeed not settled yet, but the main findings are more than sufficient to tell humanity that we need to act now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report#C...

> Oh I definitely believe you on that, it's just that taking away rights from people to accomplish climate goals is not a zero-sum game and it needs to be treated with care and caution, not alarmism.

That is for the politicians to work out. The load must be balanced of course, but if we don't act fast everyone will suffer for it. Calm and fast would be best though.

edit: Oh and the recent report about the ozone hole had some good news: The ozone hole is closing and the gases that were not emitted due to the controls also saved us from ~0.4°C of warming. (If the 'business-as-usual' projections are right, but there is no way to check that.) Plus, these greenhouse gas concentrations go down over time. Much easier than CO2 and methane, but a first win!

> A lot of care was taken in the wording of the last IPCC report to communicate what findings have which level of confidence.

The level of confidence is near zero, and if the IPCC was being honest and unbiased that is what they would say. As I said previously upthread, anybody who claims they can model our climate with any level of accuracy on the order of decades is being completely disingenuous. We can't model weather even a month out. The history of global warming alarmism has nearly a hundred-year long trail of missed predictions. But they have it right this time, right?

Nobody claims accuracy on the timescale of such a high resolution. Aditionally, we don't know about future emissions and land-use changes, and feedback effects, so we cannot predict the exact future.

Please check the wikipedia page for what is actually claimed.

> Please check the wikipedia page for what is actually claimed.

You want to point me to a fact you are trying to refute?

Where did you see written in the report that "The level of confidence is near zero"?

The actual level of confidence is near zero, not what is written. Climate scientists can prove it really easily; give a forecast of the weather more than 30 days out. Anybody claiming to be able to predict decades+ of weather should easily be able to do a 30 day forecast.

That's really low grade logic: models of weather can predict weather, models of climate can predict climate. What don't you understand in this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com