1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Climate change modelling "a fools paradise".

Discussion in 'Personal' started by lexus300, Mar 19, 2019.

  1. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

  2. Owennnn

    Owennnn Occasional commenter

    "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes"

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2009EO030002

    " 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers"

    https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

    I'll admit, I haven't watched the video, and don't plan to. I'll happily take the consensus of 99%+ of global scientists, over the <1% of unconvinced, lower expertise opponents.
     
  3. Bobbbs

    Bobbbs Occasional commenter

    It's fine to be convinced of something by reputable, and repeatable, scientific endeavors.

    Being convinced because a lot of other people are convinced is quite a terrible idea.
     
    monicabilongame and lexus300 like this.
  4. neddyfonk

    neddyfonk Established commenter

    Yup - a worldwide con of massive proportions by 'experts' that know there are valid arguments against mankind or carbon dioxide being responsible for climate change ,but they have created a PR monster that has too much impetus to be stopped.
     
    lexus300 likes this.
  5. Owennnn

    Owennnn Occasional commenter

    Where do you think these reputable, and repeatable, scientific endeavours come from?

    Oh wait... that's right, the 99% of climate scientists.
     
    monicabilongame and Mangleworzle like this.
  6. neddyfonk

    neddyfonk Established commenter

    I would suggest you reverse that decision,especially considering the bit about emails from the 99% camp voicing doubts and concerns about their 'own' work.
     
    lexus300 likes this.
  7. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Herin lies the problem with AGW in particular. The concensus does not exist except in an imaginary world.
     
  8. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Not true.
     
  9. Mangleworzle

    Mangleworzle Star commenter

    August 2015, didn't come to anything then, there's a surprise.

    I suppose it makes the conspiracy theorists feel clever.
     
  10. Ivartheboneless

    Ivartheboneless Star commenter

    The way research works is this: you apply for money with a proposal to a research council having done some preliminary work. If they fund it you may get two to five years of money to pay for research, buy materials, employ staff etc. At the end of the period say you find in the negative. No more funding, everybody is out of a job. What do you think the findings will be? This is corruption, but no different to the way any governmental system works. The evidence for this is minimal. It concentrates on carbon dioxide which is a poor "greenhouse gas". Methane is more dangerous, and water vapour, which is completely ignored. We may have atmospheric gas data going back about half a million years from ice cores. The Earth is about 5 billion years old. Calculations are too complex, processing huge amounts of data , yet they do not have enough data. There are other arguments, but like faith in Jesus, people believe it all.
     
    needabreak, lexus300 and neddyfonk like this.
  11. irs1054

    irs1054 Star commenter

    Ross McKitrick is a climate change denier.

    He is not a scientist and has shown, on many occasions, that he does not understand the scientific process. He is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance's Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming which says:
    Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

    His objections to climate change ranges from poor to bizarre, making very basic mistakes in his modelling such as confusing degrees with radians.

    He is simply not a credible critic of global warming and it is not at all unreasonable that he is ignored by the scientific community.
     
    EmanuelShadrack and sbkrobson like this.
  12. phlogiston

    phlogiston Star commenter

    Not so. However, water, because it condenses when the temperature or pressure drop tends to regulate itself.
     
  13. Ivartheboneless

    Ivartheboneless Star commenter

    Personally, even before "climate change", meaning "anthropogenically induced climate change", and global warming (which is thought to be exactly the same thing by many) I was against pollution and resource use. If the people who care about our environment had just tried to get the developed nations to reduce our incessant gobbling up of natural resources I could have been right behind it, but putting this unproveable slant on it does not help. It is just a bandwagon. Yes the earth is screwed, but not necessarily for the reasons being bandied about. Lithium use (for batteries) is getting critical, leaky nuclear facilities are most likely to render the humans all infertile, plastics in the ocean will destroy food chains ... we're doomed!
     
    needabreak and lexus300 like this.
  14. MAGAorMIGA

    MAGAorMIGA Star commenter

    Global over-population, depletion of irreplaceable natural resources, pollution of land, sea and atmosphere, intensive agricultural techniques, overuse of chemicals such as fertilisers, environmental degradation. Whatever their causes, they are happening, and either we start coming up with solutions rather than argue about incidentals, or mankind's tenure on this planet will be prematurely ended.
     
  15. Ivartheboneless

    Ivartheboneless Star commenter

    Try applying a bit of physics.
     
  16. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Have you anything to contribute regarding the statements made in the video, or are you here to attack the person instead of looking at the facts as they are portrayed?
     
  17. sbkrobson

    sbkrobson Star commenter

    Global warming denial.
    Flat earthers' tea party.
    Potayto potarto.
     
  18. Mangleworzle

    Mangleworzle Star commenter

    Sorry, I was wrong, it's from 2011.

    You seriously expect anyone to spend 2 hours watching an 8 year old video and then start to discuss it with you when you can't be bothered to comment yourself?

    These kind of comments always amuse me. What "evidence" have you reviewed? Where does your information to dismiss this come from? What are the flaws in the methods? What are the methods? Where is the data you disagree with? etc. etc.

    It's usually all just re-hashed 3rd hand from some hack newspaper reporter, lobbyist, old youtube video or other source of ill repute.

    A question I asked recently on another thread that killed the thread. How certain are you people who think AGW is not happening as a percentage?

    I also think it's interesting to see the effect of religion on AGW views as it often comes down to man is being supremely arrogant in claiming he can affect the weather whereas we all know that it's actually God. The godly tend to keep pretty quiet about it most of the time, but it inevitably slips out eventually. So are we discussing science or the primacy of some bronze age book of myths and legends?
     
    EmanuelShadrack likes this.
  19. irs1054

    irs1054 Star commenter

    The man is betrayed by his own work and words. He has an agenda, he is not a neutral person critiquing the work of climate scientists. He is a denier who makes things up.
    The part of the video you pointed to contains base assertions which are not substantiated. No need to go further.
     
  20. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Lead commenter

    That's not how funding works. Also researchers should declare who find the research so should research show burgers are good for you and it's funded by McDonalds then it tends to be checked more thoroughly.

    If your like evidence we could start here
    https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
     
    EmanuelShadrack likes this.

Share This Page