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 Crisis - Brian’s plan

Discussion in 'Personal' started by emerald52, Jan 23, 2020.

  1. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    It is my honest belief that you are completely incorrect.
    The IPCC has tried very hard along with many others to 'hide the body', the stink is overwhelming and thus the body is exposed.
    Here is why:
  2. Nanook_rubs_it

    Nanook_rubs_it Star commenter

    I am sure that is your belief and don't think you are being dishonest; what I find interesting the AGW denial claims. Why do you, and others like you, find shills, such as Robson who is a historian, more compelling than scientific organisations that have a track record of research & achievements. Particularly as you or I can't independently assess the veracity of either side's interpretation.

    My reasons for accepting the scientific consensus is the provenance of the organisations doing the analysis and that my understanding of the methodologies employ, and the thermodynamic mechanisms involved, are not contradicted by the conclusions reached.

    If financial gain were to be a corrupting factor, I find that a more compelling reason to suspect those being paid by shadowy 'institutes' such as Heartland, rather than research grants to organisations that also get grants for research that nobody questions.

    All points to anti-AGW propagada being driven by those with interests in fossil fuels and by-products. Hence the attack on solar/wind energy generation which would give most of us independant local autonomy on energy generation, and removal of influence of foreign powers. What isn't there to like?
    lanokia likes this.
  3. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    I get your point and I do agree... largely.

    But you make mention of Dr John Robson being a historian... but Hoesung Lee [chair of the IPCC] is an economist. Yes, he's an economist specialising in the economics of climate change but then Robson could be described as a historian specialising in the history of climate change. And Lee started his career at ExxonMobil... so does that make him part of the Big Carbon agenda?

    Before Lee the vice-Chair was Ismail El Gizouli... whose background was in physics and maths. Not climate science. Before him it was Rajendra Pachauri whose background was mechanical and industrial engineering.

    I'm not saying this discredits their work... my issue is more your argument when I apply it to the other side.
    Kandahar likes this.
  4. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    I would ask you to justify the date fiddling along with the data fiddling on here.
  5. Nanook_rubs_it

    Nanook_rubs_it Star commenter

    The mandate of the IPCC is “...to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.”.

    As such it is more trhan appropriate that the chair is held by an economist as that is part of the organisations remit, particularly as they have access to research conducted by domain experts in scientific, environmental and economic fields.

    Dr John Robson, on the otherhand, is giving his interpretation of scientific data which is certainly outside his sphere of expertise, and doesn't have the resources that the IPCC have to draw on (he is another Heartland Institute alumni).

    No comparison in competence to comment of the issue of climate change/AGW.
  6. Nanook_rubs_it

    Nanook_rubs_it Star commenter

    Do you have any collobration that the data that he is commenting on is accurately presented and interpreted? Particularly as Tony Heller/Steven Goddard is another Heartland Institute mouth piece...
  7. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Here is a little taster on how the wonderful IPCC fiddle data and hide inconvenient facts:

    9.5 mins in, the IPCC., and Mann's lack of integrity shown, where they decided on the AGW message even though the evidence contradicted it.
    13 min in, shows factors that contradicted their paleoestimates.
    14.14 mins in, the 33 years of deleted data is shown that was deleted by the IPCC and Mann.
    14.41 minutes in, the true diagram with unaltered Briffa's data.
  8. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Go to NOAA'S websites and extract, it is there, same for the other sources which he openly lists if you read the charts/diagrams.
  9. Aquamarina1234

    Aquamarina1234 Star commenter

    Is there an echo in here?
    It's like one endless Groundhog Day.
  10. Nanook_rubs_it

    Nanook_rubs_it Star commenter

    I understand that is the interpretation of the Heartland Institutes shills, I was asking for corroborration from organisations with some provenance of doing good science.
  11. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    I think you're just dodging there.

    I get why... but the point stands. The IPCC has not been chaired by a climate scientists for a long time. By your logic I can ignore it.

    I think you need a better argument.
  12. Nanook_rubs_it

    Nanook_rubs_it Star commenter

    No, because the IPCC has climate scientists, in respected institutions, doing the actual research as part of their organisation, while these self styled commentators and the Heartland Institute are not climate scientists and don't conduct original research. It's like giving equal standing of the WHO with the Homeopathic Society.

    Do you equate the conclusions on AGW of institutions such as NASA, MIT and with these mavericks and the Heartland Institute?
    Scintillant likes this.
  13. Kandahar

    Kandahar Lead commenter

    Standard practice in many institutions of dubious quality today. Schools headed by 20 or 30 something managers with little teaching ability; hospital departments directed by overpaid bean counters with little or no interest in their department's purpose other than to cut costs. The IPCC appears to fit wth this modern 'effieciency'.
    lexus300 likes this.
  14. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    When you can point out some good AGW science let me know and I will check it out. I will check that the data used is original and complete and without alteration to fit a modelling hypothesis. I use and most of my sources use the same sources as you EXCEPT my sources do not tamper with or estimate the data. The organisations you laud like IPCC, Nasa, NOAA are all actively adjusting and/or omitting data to fit their AGW hypothesis and I have provided many instances of such. They are the shills and there is much evidence to demonstrate that.
  15. Nanook_rubs_it

    Nanook_rubs_it Star commenter

    Which would be a fair comment if the IPCC didn't reflect the conclusions of the scientific institutions that inform their position. It would be difficult for a multi-disciplinary organisation to have a chair that represents all the specialties under consideration.

    I assume you would have the same criticism of their socio-economic proposals if there was a climate scientist as chair, which may be a fairer criticism as, given that taking mitigating action is looking more likely than halting rising temperature, considering the socio-economic effects and forming a strategy is more likely to be needed.
    Scintillant likes this.
  16. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    I think you can get stupider by just reading some of this utter anti-science garbage
  17. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    How did they manage to make the climate warm accordingly though?

    Even Exxon knew AGW was correct many years ago. Climate change denial is now the home of a very few weird individuals and embittered anti-science loons.
    Nanook_rubs_it likes this.
  18. Nanook_rubs_it

    Nanook_rubs_it Star commenter

    Don't you think if there was a conspiracy the source data would have been altered long before being made available to all?

    Given that neither of us claims to be a domain expert in the detailed analysis of this type of data or modelling, we have to rely on those who do to do the leg work. Which gets back to the more interesting question (at least to me at this point) of why you prefer to believe the conclusions as presented by individuals, who don't do any research or modelling of their own, backed by dubious organisations with a history of arguing against such things as the connection between smoking and cancer (using the same tactics of trying to throw doubt on the data provided), rather than organisations that have provenance in providing sound science? A question you seem to actively avoid answering.
  19. Kandahar

    Kandahar Lead commenter

    Well now we're talking some sense. I've been suggesting and doing this for decades. Nothing new - doesn't require the vast carbon footprint the IPCC itself along with climate summits create. The idea that man can control climate and must aim for zero emission by 2045 or earlier is utter nonsense.

    I stopped reading and taking your posts seriously some time ago.
  20. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    And did the clever science men and women not listen to your wise words?

    CO2 causes warming. Reducing emissions will cause less warming. Simple, uncomplicated science.

    I've been laughing at yours since day one.

Share This Page