|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 17, 2024 12:00:39 GMT
As is everyone's right, I am however not demanding you do anything. Nor am I. But my elected representatives are and I have to decide if I believe their reasons for doing so. If an elected representative is voted for on the basis of what he says he believes and wants to do and you vote for him then you are authorising him to make demands in your name, this is democracy. As well as rights it carries responsibilities. I voted for Blair twice so I am as responsible for what he did in my name. I can remove some of the responsibility by saying I voted for what he said he would do not what he did do, however in your case you are fully behind the demands of the climate lobby and are certainly egging them on, so own your responsibility. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 17, 2024 13:46:21 GMT
1. Nothing I can say will ever convince you two that you are wrong. 2. your arguments are all based on the evidence isn't enough and what happens in the field does not exactly match whats projected. 3. But the elephant in your room is that you can offer no alternative explanation. 4. Nor can you say why Co2 which you both agree is a greenhouse gas is not responsible on this ocassion. 5. Thankfully the scientific institutions around the planet know the truth and most governments believe them. I'll leave you to your dreams. 1. I'm simply adopting the scientific approach (as are SP and others). If you make an assertion you need to back it up with evidence. You have none. The only assertions I've made are that the CO2 warming theory cannot be demonstrated empirically and that models built on this hypothesis don't work. These are facts. 2. As I said the models would be more accurate if the CO2 coefficient was dialled down to 0.0. All the predictions have massively overstated warming. Wasn't London meant to be underwater by 2010? 3. There are so many alternative explanations that we're spoilt for choice. For example it could be the 8 fold increase in human population that has caused the warming. Or it could be various natural factors that are not fully understood - Sun's cycles for example which some scientists say. It could even be that there is NO warming. It's just that the old date that we've got is inaccurate. It's well known for example that satellite readings give higher temperatures than the old methods. And it's also well know that the weather stations that we use are increasingly in urban areas (because of the building to house the increasing population) - and we know that urban areas are warmer (a lot warmer). For example record temperatures were recorded last year on a runway where a typhoon had just taken off. I'm not surprised. 4. I can say very clearly why CO2 may not be warming the planet (overall) - because it also has a massive cooling effect. Which has never been measured. 5. As for "he scientific institutions around the planet know the truth". That just about sums up your ignorance of science. A "scientific institution" would NEVER claim to "know the truth". NO scientist knows the truth about anything. And no genuine scientist has ever claimed to understand the climate or the weather. It's way too complex. You also don't seem to understand that the "scientific organisation" that you love to quote is not even a scientific organisation at all. It does no research and it hires only scientists who believe the CO2 theory - because that's their settled view. The clues in the name ""intergovernmental panel". I suggest that read a simple book about science method - as you don't seem to have studied it at school. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 17, 2024 17:32:46 GMT
Nor am I. But my elected representatives are and I have to decide if I believe their reasons for doing so. If an elected representative is voted for on the basis of what he says he believes and wants to do and you vote for him then you are authorising him to make demands in your name, this is democracy. As well as rights it carries responsibilities. I voted for Blair twice so I am as responsible for what he did in my name. I can remove some of the responsibility by saying I voted for what he said he would do not what he did do, however in your case you are fully behind the demands of the climate lobby and are certainly egging them on, so own your responsibility. I agree with their policies so why would I object. You keep trying to personalise this to try and make it my responsibility to prove the science to you. I don't need to. I believe the climatologists, I support the politicians who say we must try to stop AGW. I need prove nothing to you. You do not have to prove to me that Brexit is good or immigration bad before you can vote for politicians who share your view. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 17, 2024 19:10:25 GMT
If an elected representative is voted for on the basis of what he says he believes and wants to do and you vote for him then you are authorising him to make demands in your name, this is democracy. As well as rights it carries responsibilities. I voted for Blair twice so I am as responsible for what he did in my name. I can remove some of the responsibility by saying I voted for what he said he would do not what he did do, however in your case you are fully behind the demands of the climate lobby and are certainly egging them on, so own your responsibility. I agree with their policies so why would I object. You keep trying to personalise this to try and make it my responsibility to prove the science to you. I don't need to. I believe the climatologists, I support the politicians who say we must try to stop AGW. I need prove nothing to you. You do not have to prove to me that Brexit is good or immigration bad before you can vote for politicians who share your view. I do not believe I have asked you to prove anything, most especially 'the science' as there is no 'the science' there is only science which is predicated on procedure "The scientific method involves careful observation coupled with rigorous scepticism, because cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the observation. Scientific inquiry includes creating a hypothesis through inductive reasoning, testing it through experiments and statistical analysis, and adjusting or discarding the hypothesis based on the results." The important part of course is "rigorous scepticism" which should be an ever present fellow traveller with any hypothesis. The hypothesis is that man made greenhouse gases are the primary drivers of global warming, how can that hypothesis stand as a conclusion beyond reproach and be considered science when the fellow traveller of rigorous scepticism is kept at bay like a spectre at the feast instead of the welcome passenger there to confirm, or refute, the hypothesis? I do not have to prove that Brexit is good or that large scale immigration bad but if I vote for a politician that will act on those beliefs I will take responsibility for electing that politician to office. That politician acts for us all, you may disagree with what he does but he is there with your, and my, and everyone else's approval as that is the nature of democracy. I disagree with almost everything Sunak does but, even in our flawed system, he is there with your, my and everyone else's approval. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2024 22:02:15 GMT
If an elected representative is voted for on the basis of what he says he believes and wants to do and you vote for him then you are authorising him to make demands in your name, this is democracy. As well as rights it carries responsibilities. I voted for Blair twice so I am as responsible for what he did in my name. I can remove some of the responsibility by saying I voted for what he said he would do not what he did do, however in your case you are fully behind the demands of the climate lobby and are certainly egging them on, so own your responsibility. I agree with their policies so why would I object. You keep trying to personalise this to try and make it my responsibility to prove the science to you. I don't need to. I believe the climatologists, I support the politicians who say we must try to stop AGW. I need prove nothing to you. You do not have to prove to me that Brexit is good or immigration bad before you can vote for politicians who share your view. You've been hammering a scientific topic you know little or nothing about because it's part of a political agenda by some other politicians? Bizarre.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 18, 2024 14:49:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 18, 2024 14:50:28 GMT
I agree with their policies so why would I object. You keep trying to personalise this to try and make it my responsibility to prove the science to you. I don't need to. I believe the climatologists, I support the politicians who say we must try to stop AGW. I need prove nothing to you. You do not have to prove to me that Brexit is good or immigration bad before you can vote for politicians who share your view. You've often asserted that the current warming is caused by CO2. You state it as a fact and you say that the vast majority o scientists agree with this. Surely any rational person would want to check the evidence before believing in this stuff. Yet you have failed to give any empirical evidence that CO2 is causing warming and you can't give a credible source for your claims about what the majority of scientists believe. I'll tell you one interesting bit there was in the BBC Horizon program I mentioned. It gave the origin (or one of them) of the "95% of scientists believe blah blah". Apparently one of the climate models was lent to a bunch of mathematical statisticians who ran the models on a variety of data varying the CO2 concentrations to see what the effect of CO2 has on temperature. They found that in every single case higher CO2 concentrations caused higher temperatures. So there was a 100% correlation for the theory - but they knocked it down to 95% because they didn't know what the model's assumptions were. Which is very bizarre. The fact is that the model starts with the hypothesis that CO2 causes warming so the results they got were a foregone conclusion. Yet this result has gone into the internet myth that 95% of scientists etc. In fact none of them were scientists anyway. THere's also a very interesting bit about the smoothing that's used to "correct" their temperature data. Obviously if you look at the raw data that has been taken over the years (using different methods) it's basically all over the place and it's hard to know where to draw a line. So what they do is apply Kalman filtering that deletes the data that is "wrong". The thing is that this method of filtering Needs an algorithm to tell it what the reading should be and they use their model to determine which readings are wrong. So it automatically preferentially deletes those readings that don't fit the theory. It's comical really. That's what the "pause gate" argument was about. The results of this filtering chose to delete the temperature readings that were taken from buoys - which are regarded as the most accurate we've got, but they didn't fit the theory so they got deleted and the "pause" disappeared. This caused the resignation of 2 senior IPCC scientists, one of whom said "This isn't science it's crap". |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 18, 2024 21:09:32 GMT
There is substantial evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activities are contributing to global warming. Here are some key points supported by scientific research and observations:
Direct measurements: Scientists have been directly measuring atmospheric CO2 levels since the late 1950s. These measurements show a clear and steady increase in CO2 concentrations over time, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and other human activities.
Correlation with temperature: There is a strong correlation between rising CO2 levels and increasing global temperatures. Ice core data and other geological records show that CO2 levels and temperature have been closely linked over hundreds of thousands of years.
Physics of greenhouse gases: The basic physics of greenhouse gases, including CO2, is well understood. These gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere by absorbing and re-emitting infrared radiation, leading to the greenhouse effect and warming the planet.
Climate models: Sophisticated climate models that incorporate various factors, including greenhouse gas emissions, solar radiation, volcanic activity, and ocean currents, consistently predict global warming trends that closely match observed temperature changes.
Observed effects: There are numerous observed effects of global warming, including rising temperatures, melting ice caps and glaciers, sea-level rise, shifts in weather patterns, more frequent and severe heatwaves, changes in precipitation patterns, and impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity. These effects are consistent with the expected consequences of increased greenhouse gas concentrations.
Consensus among scientists: There is a strong consensus among climate scientists that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary drivers of global warming and climate change. This consensus is supported by the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed scientific studies in the field.
Overall, the evidence linking CO2 emissions to global warming is robust and supported by multiple lines of research, observations, and theoretical understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 19, 2024 7:52:09 GMT
There is substantial evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activities are contributing to global warming. Here are some key points supported by scientific research and observations: 1.Direct measurements: Scientists have been directly measuring atmospheric CO2 levels since the late 1950s. These measurements show a clear and steady increase in CO2 concentrations over time, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and other human activities. 2.Correlation with temperature: There is a strong correlation between rising CO2 levels and increasing global temperatures. Ice core data and other geological records show that CO2 levels and temperature have been closely linked over hundreds of thousands of years. 3. Physics of greenhouse gases: The basic physics of greenhouse gases, including CO2, is well understood. These gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere by absorbing and re-emitting infrared radiation, leading to the greenhouse effect and warming the planet. 4. Climate models: Sophisticated climate models that incorporate various factors, including greenhouse gas emissions, solar radiation, volcanic activity, and ocean currents, consistently predict global warming trends that closely match observed temperature changes. 5. Observed effects: There are numerous observed effects of global warming, including rising temperatures, melting ice caps and glaciers, sea-level rise, shifts in weather patterns, more frequent and severe heatwaves, changes in precipitation patterns, and impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity. These effects are consistent with the expected consequences of increased greenhouse gas concentrations. 6. Consensus among scientists: There is a strong consensus among climate scientists that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary drivers of global warming and climate change. This consensus is supported by the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed scientific studies in the field. 7. Overall, the evidence linking CO2 emissions to global warming is robust and supported by multiple lines of research, observations, and theoretical understanding. 1. Correct. CO2 has been rising and it's due to man's activity (as confirmed by carbon isotopes). This is an agreed fact. 2. There is little correlation and no causative link has been demonstrated. The correlation shown in the ice cores was thought to show temperatures rising and falling as CO2 concentrations rose and fell but it's now recognised that the rise in temperature was caused the Earth's oscillation relative to the Sun. The Sun was causing the warming and the CO2 levels rose because the oceans then released CO2 as they warmed up. The warming was nothing to do with CO2. 3. Half correct. The warming effect of CO2 has been known since about 1850 but has not been demonstrated to cause warming on the planet. The problem is that CO2 also causes cooling. Like many factors, in the Earth's system, the Earth has developed the ablity to stabilise the warming effect of various gases (like CO2). If it hadn't it would have burned up millennia ago. 4. Completely wrong. The models' predictions have been laughably inaccurate - and they do NOT model the effects of CO2. They don't include the cooling effect of CO2 at all and the heating effect of CO2 is represented simply by making the hypothesis that an increase on x ppm of CO2 causes a warming of y degrees C. It's just an assumption that has proved to be completely wrong. The models are NOT "sophisticated" - they're basic and crude because most of the factors involved are not understood.. 5. The changes in weather, such as they are, have not been demonstrated to be caused by CO2 - or even by warming. As I've said the flooding has been caused by a) man building in the wrong places and not doing things to prevent flooding (like dredging etc) and b) by the "stuck" Jet Stream. There are various theories for the why the Jet Stream has been getting stuck but none of them are related to warming. The scientists have said this. The Jet Stream has caused flooding and heat waves but is not yet understood. It's interaction with winds in the stratosphere is thought to be crucial but we can't model either of these effects. We only realised that the stratosphere affected our weather a few years ago. 6. Concensus among scientists. Bollocks. Show me where you get this from. There have been many statements about this (95%, 97% etc etc) but they've ALL been discredited. You shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet or that comes out of a politician's mouth. ONe of the interesting things is that the warming (that can be seen represented on IPCC graphs as a hockey stick) has "lost" the ETCW (Early Twentieth Century Warming) that occurred between about 1920 and 1940. It was very similar to the current warming but it's gone. The reason that it's gone is because the Kalman filtering that they use to smooth out the data has completely smoothed it out - the reason being that the smoothing assumes that temperature increases with increasing CO2. So any data that doesn't follow this hypothesis is preferentially deleted. It's a nice way of making your theories look plausible - but it's NOT science. And none of your points shows any empirical evidence of the theory that CO2 causes warming. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 19, 2024 8:25:44 GMT
See. You just deny, deny.
You never back up your claims.
For instance:
Consensus among scientists: There is a strong consensus among climate scientists that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary drivers of global warming and climate change. This consensus is supported by the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed scientific studies in the field.
So, how many scientists do agree and how many don't? Where are the figures you base this denial on?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Feb 19, 2024 9:41:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 19, 2024 10:29:13 GMT
See. You just deny, deny. You never back up your claims. For instance: Consensus among scientists: There is a strong consensus among climate scientists that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary drivers of global warming and climate change. This consensus is supported by the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed scientific studies in the field.
So, how many scientists do agree and how many don't? Where are the figures you base this denial on? I think the more pertinent question is the evidence produced to show that there is a consensus sound. It seems that the evidence produced is at best flimsy and much of it is circular in that the consensus appears as a fait accompli and the the evidence that exists for it is that it exists. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 19, 2024 17:27:05 GMT
I bet they hadn't thought of that. Oh wait. the "Little Ice Age" (a period of extremely low solar activity from approximately AD 1650 to 1715 in the Northern Hemisphere, Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago.
But currently a solar maunder.  |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 19, 2024 17:31:31 GMT
See. You just deny, deny. You never back up your claims. For instance: Consensus among scientists: There is a strong consensus among climate scientists that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary drivers of global warming and climate change. This consensus is supported by the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed scientific studies in the field.
So, how many scientists do agree and how many don't? Where are the figures you base this denial on? I think the more pertinent question is the evidence produced to show that there is a consensus sound. It seems that the evidence produced is at best flimsy and much of it is circular in that the consensus appears as a fait accompli and the the evidence that exists for it is that it exists. No answer again. Not even an estimate, nothing to back up your claim beyond a half dozen instances where a climatologist disagrees with some small claim. That is then desperately grabbed by Whatsupwiththat and fed to its disciples as clickbait. You have nothing. So I believe the real scientists. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 19, 2024 22:27:45 GMT
I think the more pertinent question is the evidence produced to show that there is a consensus sound. It seems that the evidence produced is at best flimsy and much of it is circular in that the consensus appears as a fait accompli and the the evidence that exists for it is that it exists. No answer again. Not even an estimate, nothing to back up your claim beyond a half dozen instances where a climatologist disagrees with some small claim. That is then desperately grabbed by Whatsupwiththat and fed to its disciples as clickbait. You have nothing. So I believe the real scientists. What do the real scientists say? Where is the evidence of the consensus? We have been through Cook et al which was used as evidence for a few years but that has been seriously slated as a poor study both in methodology and conclusions. Some quote Science organisations but most of those refer to the IPCC's findings as evidence yet the IPCC are very much not free from criticism of their synthesis reports as Clintel have shown. The consensus is at best subjective and it is not clear what people are agreeing with. As regards 'real scientists, there are many 'real' scientists who disagree with the AGW narrative from a little to a lot, yet you ignore these 'real' scientists as of no consequence and dismiss them as bloggers. The scientific method relies on rigorous scepticism that the hypothesis should easily disprove yet the disproff adopted is denigrate the sceptics not disprove their findings. That is not science that is politics. |
|
