Experts Opinions versus Scientific Forecasts

gimlet · 16-04-2008, 05:14 PM

Experts Opinions versus Scientific Forecasts, a look at IPPC report 2007.

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its Fourth Assessment Report. The report included predictions of big increases in average world temperatures by 2100, resulting in an increasingly rapid loss of the world’s glaciers and ice caps, a dramatic global sea level rise that would threaten low-lying coastal areas, the spread of tropical diseases, and severe drought and floods.

These dire predictions are not, however, the result of scientific forecasting; rather, they are the opinions of experts. Expert opinion on climate change has often been wrong.

More at: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308/st308.pdf

Clippo · 16-04-2008, 07:31 PM

Pity the NCPA don't have any credibility in serious scientific circles.

Amongst much from from Wiki :-

The NCPA web site states that it "receives 70% of its funding from foundations, 20% from corporations, and 10% from individuals." According to Greenpeace it has received roughly $400,000 from ExxonMobil over the last 10 years.[4] Expenditures in 2001 were $5.2 million.

Besoeker · 16-04-2008, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimlet

Experts Opinions versus Scientific Forecasts, a look at IPPC report 2007.

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its Fourth Assessment Report. The report included predictions of big increases in average world temperatures by 2100, resulting in an increasingly rapid loss of the world’s glaciers and ice caps, a dramatic global sea level rise that would threaten low-lying coastal areas, the spread of tropical diseases, and severe drought and floods.

These dire predictions are not, however, the result of scientific forecasting; rather, they are the opinions of experts. Expert opinion on climate change has often been wrong.

More at: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308/st308.pdf

Have you read the IPCC report?

g hall · 16-04-2008, 09:34 PM

Definition of an expert:

Someone who knows everything about nothing
or
X equals the unknown quantity and spurt a drip under pressure

Some posters here may just qualify

Besoeker · 17-04-2008, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g hall

Definition of an expert:

Someone who knows everything about nothing

More fully:
Someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about absolutely nothing.

g hall · 18-04-2008, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Besoeker

More fully:
Someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about absolutely nothing.

I just tried to keep it simple for the less erudite

Besoeker · 18-04-2008, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g hall

I just tried to keep it simple for the less erudite

Perhaps the less erudite will appreciate that.

16-04-2008, 05:14 PM	#1 (permalink)
gimlet Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Shropshire Posts: 797	Experts Opinions versus Scientific Forecasts Experts Opinions versus Scientific Forecasts, a look at IPPC report 2007. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its Fourth Assessment Report. The report included predictions of big increases in average world temperatures by 2100, resulting in an increasingly rapid loss of the world’s glaciers and ice caps, a dramatic global sea level rise that would threaten low-lying coastal areas, the spread of tropical diseases, and severe drought and floods. These dire predictions are not, however, the result of scientific forecasting; rather, they are the opinions of experts. Expert opinion on climate change has often been wrong. More at: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308/st308.pdf

16-04-2008, 09:34 PM	#4 (permalink)
g hall Uber Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,573	Definition of an expert: Someone who knows everything about nothing or X equals the unknown quantity and spurt a drip under pressure Some posters here may just qualify __________________ "That government is best which governs least." "This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries". "To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

16-04-2008, 07:31 PM	#2 (permalink)
Clippo Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cheshire Posts: 1,776	Pity the NCPA don't have any credibility in serious scientific circles. Amongst much from from Wiki :- The NCPA web site states that it "receives 70% of its funding from foundations, 20% from corporations, and 10% from individuals." According to Greenpeace it has received roughly $400,000 from ExxonMobil over the last 10 years.[4] Expenditures in 2001 were $5.2 million.