Yesterday, a reporter asked me how the IPCC came up with the 95% number. Here is the exchange that I had with him:The final IPCC Assessment Report 5 (actually, just the Summary for Policy Makers) is now out. The IPCC hasn't exactly covered themselves in glory here - it's contradictory and evasive. It seems that the IPCC tried to stonewall everyone in this report - to hide the decline, you might say - and everyone is seeing through their antics.
Reporter: I’m hoping you can answer a question about the upcoming IPCC report. When the report states that scientists are “95 percent certain” that human activities are largely to cause for global warming, what does that mean? How is 95 percent calculated? What is the basis for it? And if the certainty rate has risen from 90 n 2007 to 95 percent now, does that mean that the likelihood of something is greater? Or that scientists are just more certain? And is there a difference?.JC: The 95% is basically expert judgment, it is a negotiated figure among the authors. The increase from 90-95% means that they are more certain. How they can justify this is beyond me..Reporter: You mean they sit around and say, “How certain are you?” ”Oh, I feel about 95 percent certain. Michael over there at Penn State feels a little more certain. And Judy at Georgia Tech feels a little less. So, yeah, overall I’d say we’re about 95 percent certain.” Please tell me it’s more rigorous than that..JC: Well I wasn’t in the room, but last report they said 90%, and perhaps they felt it was appropriate or politic that they show progress and up it to 95%..Reporter: So it really is as subjective as that?.JC: As far as I know, this is what goes on.
While the MSM won't throw them under the bus, it's very likely that the media will never go to bat for them with the vigor they used to. The same goes for governments. The public will likely ignore the whole thing, meaning that government won't be interested (no votes there) and the media won't be either (you won't sell any papers with ZOMG THERMAGEDDON!!!11!!eleventy!!!).
It's really a pathetic end to the whole sordid affair, if you ask me.
7 comments:
A pathetic end, except for all the damage it's caused, the money it's stolen.
Funny, I just read an AP article by Messrs. Ritter and Borenstein that made it sound like this was by far the worst IPCC report yet.
I will say I'm more than 95% sure that most of these MSM reporters couldn't find their own asses with an extra set of hands, a map and a flashlight.
95% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Uughh! I feel so dirty and used....I... kinda like it.
But WAIT! How is "Teh Owl-My-Tee BO" gonna justify all these gas taxes and green NRG scams-err-initiatives and policies and regulations, oh my?
Justify, yah right! That would require him to be JUST... ....I just made coffee come out my OWN nose....
Personally, I'm 100% certain that human activities are responsible for all reports of global warming. Those datasets didn't fudge^h^h^h^h^h adjust themselves, you know....
the proverbial kinds of falsehoods, ‘lies, damned lies, and statistics.’ ~originator lost to time.
Per ccpbc's comment above, National Propaganda Radio Friday served up the report as a heaping helping of Impending Thermageddon™, with a side of We Told You So™.
Post a Comment