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

    I can accept that as far as it goes.
    We can only assume such because we rely on ice core samples (mainly) to assess the ancient past.
    You seem to be ignoring the much warmer Roman warming period BTW did CO2 cause that? or the other warming periods?
    If you have proof of this I would be very interested, particularly as food production now is higher than it has ever been.
    (37) Climate Change: The Maldives Mystery - YouTube
     
  2. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

  3. Owennnn

    Owennnn Occasional commenter

  4. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    Could you explain the thinking here?
     
  5. Nanook_rubs_it

    Nanook_rubs_it Star commenter

    You'd better hope I do, as when you or yours are sitting at 36,000 ft, you are more than likely to be on an aircraft I have signed off a bit of primary structure on, all based on 'processed' test data...

    In most cases their research into health, technology etc is funded by the same sources as that fund their climate research ie Governments.

    I can understand why you avoid answering the question, but what other fields do you think they give corrupt conclusions on to keep the research funds rolling in? Vaccinations, Astro-physics, Moon landings?

    That isn't how the science is done. You really need to read the actual research rather than accept the interpretation of some youtube idiot funded by an oil company. Plenty of links have been provided for you, by many posters, read them directly.

    Eh? who said it did? My point was that if there was a conspiracy to alter the data to fit a desired outcome, it would be simpler to doctor the raw data in the first place. Given the in-depth descriptions of the data processing methods vs some old geezer on youtube, I will go with my reading of the former as it is familiar.


    The facts have been established by learned institutions who have proven their ability to collect, process and develop methodlogies that accurately predict outcomes in many areas of research.

    The Heartland on the other hand, deals in misinformation. Do you accept their endorsement of no causal link between smoking and cancer?

    Read the research that has been done.
     
  6. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    Where does it say that we will have trillions, or even 20 billion to feed?
     
  7. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    A huge assumption based on the huge assumption that the science is pseudoscience.
     
  8. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    A damned sight fewer than will die from not being able to keep cool.
     
  9. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    Unfortunately, I think that while the rich and powerful can finance and defend their lifestyle what you prophesise will happen. I also think that things will be worse east of the Atlantic and west of the Pacific and north of the southern border of Texas.
     
  10. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    I seem to remember that at the time I pointed out some fallacies but I'm not going to look for them in the hope you will give them some thought second time around. Let's deal with the water assertions.
     
  11. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    Like tobacco and cancer?
     
  12. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    You don't seem to have read them. If you did you would find rebuttals of your accusations of data manipulation.
     
  13. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    Haber process for one. Irrigation for another. Land use for a third.
     
  14. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    Another youtube presentation. Reclaimed land? Why can't it be reclaimed to the extent that it will survive inundation further into the future? What risk factors are the insurance companies insuring against? More fluff and puff, I'm afraid.
     
  15. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    First thing that stands out from first link "projected climate change", funny how a projected figure probably using models where data has been adjusted to meet the hypothesis is now used as factual:rolleyes:
    Plus "There is abundant evidence that many species are already shifting their geographic ranges in space in response to anthropogenic climate change" The newest acronym 'ACC' is now a fact:rolleyes: and of course you know:rolleyes: that climate change is older than humans?
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2019
  16. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    The combination of warmer weather and higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations is boosting soil moisture worldwide because of increased water vapour and CO2 fertilization of plants. Fischer 2007 a&b previously referenced.
     
  17. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    No.
    How is it that has not been inundated already after all it was the same AGW dogma that predicted inundation twice already and it still has not happened.
     
  18. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    CO2 had no role in it then?
     
  19. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    So who is correct, you believe what comes over as factual or you go with the dogma.
     
  20. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Separate topic why not start one?
     

Share This Page