What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

OT: Current Affairs and Politics

Messages
11,677
No, mate, you didn't. You posted a paragraph or two from the IPCC report that stated they had low confidence in the relationship between climate change and drought, If you've done all the study on the subject you claim, you'd know firstly, that "low confidence" is not the definitive statement of "no causation" you falsely make it out to be, and secondly that the reasoning behind that "low confidence" is a lack information and data on droughts, you know, the kind of stuff actual science needs to draw a conclusion.



Yes, data that shows increased global rainfall. which is all fine and dandy, but you then go on to link this with your erroneous claim above, and attempt to deduce from that there is no relationship to the severity of the bushfires, because duh, more rain.

The problem there is your "logic" is flawed. And the reason is that despite having more rain, we still have drought. Now setting aside whether or not climate change has had any influence on the depth of the drought or not, we do know a few things.

Yes, Australia has been getting more rain in general, this past year aside being the driest and hottest on record.

We also know that the atmosphere contains more Co2, and what's relevant ( and so very ironic ) about that here, is that sceptics so often dismiss the importance off that with the line that it is harmless plant food.

So if we have all this extra rain, and we have all this extra plant food, we don't need a study to tell us that plants are gonna do pretty well in that environment, and they're gonna grow more than they otherwise would have done, great hey.

Except, when you follow that with a year of no rain, and higher temperatures, the plants don't like it so much and will dry up, shed leaves , die , you know, standard stuff. So we now have drier, warmer conditions, and all this extra dead plant material, which as it happens is also described as fuel load.

We also then have a multitude of statements from those in control of such things that their ability to reduce these loads through longer fire seasons means we have even greater fuel loads than would other wise be the case.

So even if we ignore any influence climate change has or does not have on drought, because wee really don't know, we still get drought, and we also get the other conditions that are influenced by climate change that do influence the severity of the fires we have seen.

All of which very clearly points to your definitive statement of.........



.....................as complete bunkum.



If smug was a scientific discipline, you'd have a Nobel prize mate. Pity it'd have no justification though.

Firstly, I posted their summary paragraph but I did link to the entire document. If you didn't read it (shock, horror) then that's not my fault.

Secondly, so you agree that the evidence to establish a link between climate change and drought is not there? Cool.

Thirdly, plant food blah blah blah. It's irrelevant as it has nothing to do with climate change. If the severity of the fires was caused by drought (not linked to climate change) and more plant food (not linked to climate change) and precipitation (not due to climate change - which all claims wet areas will get wetter [wrong, see Southeast Asia and northern South America] and dry areas will get drier [wrong, see Australia]) then there's no grounds to link climate change to the fires.

There is no credible evidence anywhere linking the two. Propagandistic headlines don't count. Sarah Hanson-Young doesn't count. Some guy on the morning show doesn't count. Your preferred political narrative doesn't count.

Keep acting like there is. That's fine. We both know you're wrong and just politicising a tragedy. I don't care about internet points, I care about the truth, and we both know that's on my side.
 

Bandwagon

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
41,833
Firstly, I posted their summary paragraph but I did link to the entire document. If you didn't read it (shock, horror) then that's not my fault.

I've read enough of it to understand you completely misrepresented the term "low confidence" in the context in which it was used.

Secondly, so you agree that the evidence to establish a link between climate change and drought is not there? Cool.

There's not enough quality historical data to quantify whether there is or isn't, that's the entire reason behind the "low confidence" on the issue. Again, your claim was the IPCC was definitive that there was no link, they make no such definitive claim. Your claim is false.

Thirdly, plant food blah blah blah. It's irrelevant as it has nothing to do with climate change. If the severity of the fires was caused by drought (not linked to climate change) and more plant food (not linked to climate change) and precipitation (not due to climate change - which all claims wet areas will get wetter [wrong, see Southeast Asia and northern South America] and dry areas will get drier [wrong, see Australia]) then there's no grounds to link climate change to the fires.

Desperately pleading you are right is, well, kinda desperate mate. I mean imagine, increased levels of Co2 have nothing to do with climate change? Increased levels of precipitation, nope that's got nothing to do with climate change neither, what about increases in temperature?

Really mate, your entire argument here boils down to all of these changes in our climate have nothing to do with climate change.

There is no credible evidence anywhere linking the two. Propagandistic headlines don't count. Sarah Hanson-Young doesn't count. Some guy on the morning show doesn't count. Your preferred political narrative doesn't count.

Ha ha, honestly, that's the ploppiest pile of plop of an argument. When I quote any of the above as a source, you might have some kind of point, 'till then though.........

Keep acting like there is. That's fine. We both know you're wrong and just politicising a tragedy. I don't care about internet points, I care about the truth, and we both know that's on my side.

Geez, are you trying to set the record here for the most logical fallacies in one short sentence?

Let's see, I got appeals to emotion and authority, proof by assertion and a little ad hominem dig or two in there. Did I miss any?
 

Bazal

Post Whore
Messages
99,404
images
 
Messages
11,677
I've read enough of it to understand you completely misrepresented the term "low confidence" in the context in which it was used.

No, you haven't. The fact that you don't understand "low confidence" shows that.

You see, they don't use absolute terms like "no confidence" or "absolute confidence" or anything like that. They avoid absolutes.

So, in the absence of absolutes, "low confidence" means "no confidence".

You see, Bandy, I haven't "read enough" of the reports. I've read all of them. Every single word. So I know what I'm talking about.

But you've "read enough". Haha, you've never read a word of them in your life. Let alone gone through the entirety of one. Let alone all 5 of them.

You can try and claim that you have. I mean, it's the internet, right? But I'm just talking to you here, Bandy - I know you haven't. And you know that I know.

So claim it all you want. I know you're a politically driven liar, and you know that I know. ;)

But you, being ignorant and having a political agenda to push, hilariously use the lack of absolutes to try and claim that "low confidence" means "oh, you know...we just don't have all the evidence, right now...but you know...it still means droughts are caused by climate change...we just...you know...don't have enough evidence to say that, right now..."

The best evidence that you are pushing an agenda is how you mince words. You try to twist meanings, scrape whatever you can out of the vaguest of opportunities, all to avoid the cognitive dissonance that plagues you.

And, hilariously, you accused me of misinterpreting the IPCC report. Oh, the true hilarity there.
 

Bandwagon

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
41,833
No, you haven't. The fact that you don't understand "low confidence" shows that.

You see, they don't use absolute terms like "no confidence" or "absolute confidence" or anything like that. They avoid absolutes.

So, in the absence of absolutes, "low confidence" means "no confidence".

You see, Bandy, I haven't "read enough" of the reports. I've read all of them. Every single word. So I know what I'm talking about.

But you've "read enough". Haha, you've never read a word of them in your life. Let alone gone through the entirety of one. Let alone all 5 of them.

You can try and claim that you have. I mean, it's the internet, right? But I'm just talking to you here, Bandy - I know you haven't. And you know that I know.

So claim it all you want. I know you're a politically driven liar, and you know that I know. ;)

But you, being ignorant and having a political agenda to push, hilariously use the lack of absolutes to try and claim that "low confidence" means "oh, you know...we just don't have all the evidence, right now...but you know...it still means droughts are caused by climate change...we just...you know...don't have enough evidence to say that, right now..."

The best evidence that you are pushing an agenda is how you mince words. You try to twist meanings, scrape whatever you can out of the vaguest of opportunities, all to avoid the cognitive dissonance that plagues you.

And, hilariously, you accused me of misinterpreting the IPCC report. Oh, the true hilarity there.

IPCC AR5 synthesis report Page 53 section 1.4 Extreme Events

Top of right hand column

There is low confidence in observed global-scale trends in droughts, due to lack of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the choice of the definition for drought, and due to geographical inconsistencies in drought trends. There is also low confidence in the attribution of changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century, due to the same observational uncertainties and difficulties in distinguishing decadal scale variability in drought from long-term trends. {WGI Table SPM.1, 2.6.2.3, 10.6, Figure 2.33, WGII 3.ES, 3.2.7}

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf


So many Lolz...........
 

Bazal

Post Whore
Messages
99,404
I mean, low confidence means low.

Scientists would normally use something like "there is no evidence to support..." or "no correlation was found, between..."
 

Latest posts

Top