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

    Your circular argument continues:rolleyes:
    I will repeat: Any science research that has to adjust historical and present temperature data so as to produce a climate model is fraudulent. Producing the data is one thing presenting it in creative ways is another IMO.
    Take another look at the topic header BTW.
  2. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    I have shown where it is or has been altered and regression analysis is not fraud if you maintain data integrity.
    A simple question if it (RA) is used to examine the influence of one or more independent variables on a dependent variable, who/what determines the dependent variable?

    Can you still not see the problem?
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2019
  3. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Name those I have used on here and justify your accusation.
    valentyna_holenkova likes this.
  4. valentyna_holenkova

    valentyna_holenkova New commenter

    I can see that. All you do, like XR, is alienate them.
    Now that is really going to work isn't it? How often has the position of "I'm right, you are wrong" won people around to your way of thinking.
    You mean that there are some corporations dependent on profit at all costs. Well that happens to be a worldwide problem, not just North American. You only need to consider the EU project our parliament is desperate to remain part of on account this 'greed' which depends on ease of trade, movement of people and goods no matter that this all generates CO2 at a massive rate. What you are in fact arguing is that we should be countering globalisation, and that means resisting monoliths like the EU, and the USA.

    That is one reason I changed my lifestyle over half a century ago to live communally, become self sufficient where possible, trade locally and always thingk "Small" - the antithesis of Big EU, Big USA, Big corporatism. Fight those and you will begin fighting the threats to the environment you say you care about.

    On top of that, you would do well not to insult those you disagree with, but understand that everyone is entitled to think and believe how they like. Of course, through education, humour and good will we can always influence others for the better.
    lexus300 likes this.
  5. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Crop yield growth and cash benefit with 300ppm more CO2, showed that 83 food crops including carrots, turnips, many fresh fruits, grapes, sugar beet, dry beans, oranges, yams, nuts, rapeseed, soybeans, and many others had increased crop yields of >45% rising to </= 78%.
    Idso CD (2013) The positive externalities of CO2.
    [This comment/section/image has been removed]
  6. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    If you fail to justify then why do you persist on this topic?
  7. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    I have not used one for quite a while and even if I had was it factually incorrect?
    Bring things back to facts:
    When you look at the contributions to global warming of each of the greenhouse gases, water vapour figures seem to coalesce around 90% (+2%possibly) with the other 8 to 10% being CO2 at 6% contribution, Methane at 2% contribution and others up to 2% contribution, also the gases in the atmosphere excluding water vapour are Nitrogen 78%, Oxygen 21%, trace gases 1% and of the trace gases CO2 represents 0.04% (400ppm), argon 0.93% plus others 0.03%.
    Source US National weather service. In geological time 400ppm is not a high figure it is only when you look at it over a much shorter period it seems to be high.
  8. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    You are an interesting person:)
    valentyna_holenkova likes this.
  9. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    It runs both ways;)
    valentyna_holenkova likes this.
  10. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    It seems that the link no longer works, my apologies I will look for an alternative.
  11. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    This is off topic but a very interesting and in places well balanced discussion;
  12. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Environmentalists are like Watermelons… green on the outside, red on the inside
  13. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    All that extra using more water. No measure of the collateral damage if the rise in CO2 is world wide rather than local to an experiment: DDT was like that; set up the experiment, show it was wonderful and only later find out what it was doing to the wider environment. I wasn't arguing against greater yields for some crops it was your contention about saving water that I looked at. You have also ignored that particular focus.
  14. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    What is your view anthropogenic climate change?
  15. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    As regards the fraud there are these articles.



    It is interesting that Lamar Smith cited an article in the Daily Mail. Lamar received funding from oil and gas companies and may still do so. He also said that a Dr Bates said the data was fraudulent but Bates denied having done so.
    Nanook_rubs_it likes this.
  16. Owennnn

    Owennnn Occasional commenter

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again, nobody is denying that CO2 levels haven't been higher in the geological past, but the sea levels, continents and plantlife back then was very different to todays. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing at a faster rate than they ever have in the past, no longer on a geological time scale of millions of years, but on a timescale of hundreds of years. Prehistoric plantlife would have been able to evolve and adapt/been selected to survive the changes in the atmosphere as they happened. Modern crops, produced through interbreeding, hybridisation and artificial selection then distributed worldwide simply cannot adapt/evolve fast enough to the rate of change the atmosphere is undergoing, and our cities and population centres cannot adapt to the rate of change of sea levels that will occur if the atmospheric change continues.

    Whether Climate change is anthropogenic or not (although all reliable evidence points to yes) the climate IS demonstrably changing fast, and our society, agriculture and infrastructure is not prepared for the results.
    Scintillant likes this.
  17. Nanook_rubs_it

    Nanook_rubs_it Star commenter

    No. Those institutions conduct research into various fields paid for by grants in the same way as the CC research; it is pertinent to ask if it is only their finding on AGW that you don't hold with.

    The Heartland Institute, however, have a history of deseminating ideas that go against established scientific evidence, such as asserting no causal link between smoking cigarettes and cancer. They have form.

    Your ignorance of metrology, processing of experimental data, and modelling is evident, maybe you should start at the beginning:


    If slight of hand is at play, then why have 'they' not adjusted the raw data prior to releasing, rather than publish them and then explain the methododlogies they have used to process the data?

    Look back over the thread; everyone of the characters you have referenced, that opposes AGW, is linked to the Heartland Institute.
  18. valentyna_holenkova

    valentyna_holenkova New commenter

    Man obviously is impacting on climate which is why I made changes as a young adult during the late 50s. There were many of us aware at the time that we could not go on as we were - with smog, pesticides, and traffic jams. This is not new - some Victorians were equally aware that the balance was not right and made efforts then to effect changes. We now have a state of near hysteria, and yet those getting most irate are unlikely to change themselves, and seem to be fighting the wrong enemy. The real enemy is globalisation and corporate greed supported increasingly centralised political systems such as the EU. How can we fight environmental damage if we have a political system that encourages the free mass movement of people and goods? The opposite needs encouraging: small local politics, sourcing goods locally, living locally to your work. Change starts at home - but we must campaign for political change, and for local political control of our lives and free ourselves where possible from the big conglomerates.
  19. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    With increasing water vapour there will be more water available and of course conserving water is a good thing, just adding a little pequency to your slant;)
    Do you not think that AGW agenda is doing just that? If we can manage to lower CO2 levels and I think that is virtually impossible BTW, then according to the AGW dogma the world will/may (no one knows) cool, any ideas on how to continue to feed 'trillions' of humans at that point in time IF it ever becomes possible to reverse warming by human actions????
    The other major issue assuming (huge assumption based on pseudo science) we can reverse warming is, how many more people are going to die as a result of not being able to keep warm. How many of the AGW botherers will forsake their cars their electrical gadgets their International holidays their imported foods and other goods, their central heating boilers, their freedom of movement etc??
    The real problem with all of this AGW fervour, is that the actions now being promulgated will become a massive population thinning the scale of which we have never seen.
  20. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Judging by your post you are the one who does not understand the science of measurement.
    From whom and what do they have to produce or say they will produce to get the money???? Let us get to specifics of who, what and why.
    Scientific research is supposed to go against establishment, it is supposed to establish truth, the kind of science you prefer is pseudo science because all it does is to make 'adjusted' data emulate an hypothesis rather than to test it.
    The raw data never sees the modelling software or do you believe that it does?
    Disprove the facts and I will listen intently all that you are doing is deflecting the debate so as to stifle discussion.

Share This Page