The “anti-Greta”

[turbobloke]

jshell said:

Sophisticated Sarah said:

Studying an MSc in meteorology and climate. Lecturers have advised against research questioning the current ‘consensus’ as although they believe it’s flawed, you won’t get funding and will find yourself marginalised (so not tried and probably won’t). Like most they agree that the climate’s changing, they agree that we could be having an impact (most definitely with waste products such as plastics) so best to be cautious. However they’re not confident in the current models and are concerned about the implications for the respect of science if/when the predictions don’t come true.

From my position, I see no issue with moving towards renewables and think it’s good to diversify where energy comes from which is a pleasant side effect of the environmental movement. Not sure from what I’ve studied how much of an impact we have on the environment although I’m confident we have some.

Unfortunately politics, environmentalism, and science seem to have blended with only the extremes output by the media. This results in hysteria and rush to ‘solutions’, causes others to counter by believing the whole thing is bullst, and really gets us nowhere. I’d prefer a sensible approach with carrots rather than sticks e.g encourage users into renewables by providing a decent infrastructure, get public transport to a decent standard so it’s an option, invest in a charging network throughout the country so electric vehicles are a feasible option. Simply punishing people by raising taxes gets their backs up.

This is a good post and demonstrates one of the problems in actually having a debate. I worked with a team of Meteorologists who privately ridiculed the models and many of the accepted notions. In public they were all true believers!

Mild scepticism costs careers.

The reality is, when deviation from dogma results in funding loss, career stagnation (or worse) and marginalisation (or once again worse, i.e. vilification) then it's not science any longer it's politics.

Even though peer review gatekeeping has been mostly removed in terms of climate, there has to be doubt as to whether the increasing number of peer-reviewed papers showing how data refutes the models, and others showing the 'unprecedented' claims are nonsense with some featured recently or relatively recently in this thread (Arazny et al, Kamenose & Hennige) are covered in bachelor's or master's courses these days for the reasons outlined above by Sophisticated Sarah.

These three for example which ought to be well-known everywhere by now. Are students directed to these and others in the same vein which focus on empirical data and its relationship with model outputs? The suspicion is there's a form of censorship operating.

.Varotsos and Efstathiou in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2019) "it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities".

McKitrick and Christy in Earth & Space Science (2018) showing that the difference between actual data and agw climate model predictions is significant such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected "the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models...is incorrect".

Fleming in Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) "The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate."

[Gadgetmac]

Well, let's see if it's true. Name and establishment and we can ask for confirmation can't we?

I'm not holding out much hope though.

[John Locke]

Gadgetmac said:

Sophisticated Sarah said:

Gadgetmac said:

Sophisticated Sarah said:

Jinx said:

chrispmartha said:

That example kind of disproves your point, consensus was changed because of that

And anyway saying because it happened in that one case so it must be the same for Climate Change is utterly daft

What is daft is following and advocating consensus uncritically, as consensus is only one paper away from being changed.

Try getting funding for a paper going against the consensus

Have you yourself tried? Is that how it works, you ask for funding to research say glacier melt in West Antarctica and "they" (whoever "they" are) ask you to submit your findings in advance so that they can determine whether to fund you or not?

I'm genuinely interested in your line of reasoning on how you think the application for funding process must work.

Studying an MSc in meteorology and climate. Lecturers have advised against research questioning the current ‘consensus’ as although they believe it’s flawed, you won’t get funding and will find yourself marginalised (so not tried and probably won’t). Like most they agree that the climate’s changing, they agree that we could be having an impact (most definitely with waste products such as plastics) so best to be cautious. However they’re not confident in the current models and are concerned about the implications for the respect of science if/when the predictions don’t come true.

From my position, I see no issue with moving towards renewables and think it’s good to diversify where energy comes from which is a pleasant side effect of the environmental movement. Not sure from what I’ve studied how much of an impact we have on the environment although I’m confident we have some.

Unfortunately politics, environmentalism, and science seem to have blended with only the extremes output by the media. This results in hysteria and rush to ‘solutions’, causes others to counter by believing the whole thing is bullst, and really gets us nowhere. I’d prefer a sensible approach with carrots rather than sticks e.g encourage users into renewables by providing a decent infrastructure, get public transport to a decent standard so it’s an option, invest in a charging network throughout the country so electric vehicles are a feasible option. Simply punishing people by raising taxes gets their backs up.

So you are telling me that your lecturers do not believe that the earth is warming in-line with expectations for the additional amount of co2 we have released into the atmosphere? Rather they are concentrating on the use of plastics as a possible cause for any warming over co2?

Can you give me a name of one of these lecturers please because I’d like to ping a quick email off to hear that for myself. They normally reply to such requests as I and others have done this before. It’s never come back as advertised yet.

Cheers.

Nowhere did Sarah suggest: "Rather they are concentrating on the use of plastics as a possible cause for any warming over co2?"

What she actually wrote was: "Like most they agree that the climate’s changing, they agree that we could be having an impact (most definitely with waste products such as plastics) so best to be cautious."

[Gadgetmac]

Getragdogleg said:

This is nuts, the only people saying that she is "the darling of the climate sceptic movement" are the graun and Co.

It's like they are leading the narrative already.

It's fking clever stuff really, to get ahead of this so it's already discredited before it gets going.

Noted.

I think you'll find TB was championing her on the Greta thread before anybody else had even heard of her. That's where I first heard of her.

It's more likely that having carried her through the streets proclaiming the 2nd coming everybody is now being caught out by her past indiscretions.

Fat right goddess has unsavoury views, what a shocker.

[bitchstewie]

Getragdogleg said:

This is nuts, the only people saying that she is "the darling of the climate sceptic movement" are the graun and Co.

It's like they are leading the narrative already.

It's fking clever stuff really, to get ahead of this so it's already discredited before it gets going.

Noted.

I think they're simply pointing out who she's associated with and paid by and what she's said in the past.

I don't have a lot of time for Greta Thunberg but I'd probably have even less when they dig out the videos of her getting into the way Jews and Muslims get treated differently and the posts she's made on anti-islam blogs.

[Sophisticated Sarah]

Gadgetmac said:

Well, let's see if it's true. Name and establishment and we can ask for confirmation can't we?

I'm not holding out much hope though.

Giving out the names of people warning of the career damage by going against the political view doesn’t seem wise. What do you think?

As previously stated they agree that there may be a human impact, just not as devastating as the models are suggesting. I’m guessing you understood that but just wanted to twist words to an agenda

[Gadgetmac]

Sophisticated Sarah said:

Gadgetmac said:

Well, let's see if it's true. Name and establishment and we can ask for confirmation can't we?

I'm not holding out much hope though.

Giving out the names of people warning of the career damage by going against the political view doesn’t seem wise. What do you think?

But they are lecturers, saying this in front of students so it shouldn't be an issue. If they are prepared to do that then they'll have no problem replying to questions on it.

Unfortunately it is what I clearly suspected, the usual denier BS. Don't worry, this happens all the time. You're not the first to be asked to prove something and you come up a bit short

[Gadgetmac]

John Locke said:

Nowhere did Sarah suggest: "Rather they are concentrating on the use of plastics as a possible cause for any warming over co2?"

What she actually wrote was: "Like most they agree that the climate’s changing, they agree that we could be having an impact (most definitely with waste products such as plastics) so best to be cautious."

Re-read it. The sentence is constructed to infer that the climate is changing and we could be having an impact with waste products such as plastic so best to be cautious. Climate had been linked to waste products in that text.

You'll also notice that you are the only one bringing that up.

[Sophisticated Sarah]

Gadgetmac said:

Sophisticated Sarah said:

Gadgetmac said:

Well, let's see if it's true. Name and establishment and we can ask for confirmation can't we?

I'm not holding out much hope though.

Giving out the names of people warning of the career damage by going against the political view doesn’t seem wise. What do you think?

But they are lecturers, saying this in front of students so it shouldn't be an issue. If they are prepared to do that then they'll have no problem replying to questions on it.

Unfortunately it is what I clearly suspected, the usual denier BS. Don't worry, this happens all the time. You're not the first to be asked to prove something and you come up a bit short

I’m sure the world will cope with not having to prove itself to you

[jshell]

Sophisticated Sarah said:

Gadgetmac said:

Well, let's see if it's true. Name and establishment and we can ask for confirmation can't we?

I'm not holding out much hope though.

Giving out the names of people warning of the career damage by going against the political view doesn’t seem wise. What do you think?

As previously stated they agree that there may be a human impact, just not as devastating as the models are suggesting. I’m guessing you understood that but just wanted to twist words to an agenda

Nailed it, final sentence...

[Smiler.]

[Gadgetmac]

Sophisticated Sarah said:

Gadgetmac said:

Sophisticated Sarah said:

Gadgetmac said:

Well, let's see if it's true. Name and establishment and we can ask for confirmation can't we?

I'm not holding out much hope though.

Giving out the names of people warning of the career damage by going against the political view doesn’t seem wise. What do you think?

But they are lecturers, saying this in front of students so it shouldn't be an issue. If they are prepared to do that then they'll have no problem replying to questions on it.

Unfortunately it is what I clearly suspected, the usual denier BS. Don't worry, this happens all the time. You're not the first to be asked to prove something and you come up a bit short

I’m sure the world will cope with not having to prove itself to you

Yeah, that's always the last line of defence of those called out

[Gadgetmac]

Smiler. said:

Although in order to keep a sense of proportion about it you must always take account of the calibre of the opposition.

[George Smiley]

smn159 said:

Except pretty much every single poster denying the science has right wing views - or 'common sense' views as you put it with a typical lack of self awareness, despite you not being able to resist asserting 'left wing socialist teachers' and name checking Owen Jones

Maybe you lot can be persuaded that quantum mechanics and relativity are both lefty plots - with the cut and paste skills on display on the various climate threads we'd have a unified theory in no time

Provided of course that you can find it on Breitbart

Of course we have some impact but outside our contributions can you care to explain how Greenland was 10,000 years ago covered in rain forest?

There are also natural cycles far more powerful but you cannot control or tax based on some inconvenient truths

[smn159]

George Smiley said:

Of course we have some impact but outside our contributions can you care to explain how Greenland was 10,000 years ago covered in rain forest?

There are also natural cycles far more powerful but you cannot control or tax based on some inconvenient truths

How can you possibly argue about the science if your starting position is that it's all a plot to 'control or tax' you?

I'd honestly have more respect for anyone who just said that they accepted the science but not the measures proposed to limit the warming, rather than all this bullst armchair climate expert stuff

[George Smiley]

Gadgetmac said:

smn159 said:

George Smiley said:

lets take "left" and "right" out of this and replace with "common sense", "science presented", "science proven"

levelling it down to right wing or left wing is ridiculous and will never result in anything getting done.

Imagine if a right wing 19 year old got children that supported her views to go on strike

Imagine if the schooling system wasnt infiltrated with left wing socialist teachers with only a single message to instill in their students.

Next week Owen Jones will be campaigning against Yorkshire Tea for being right wing and homophobic (due to tea bagging)

Except pretty much every single poster denying the science has right wing views - or 'common sense' views as you put it with a typical lack of self awareness, despite you not being able to resist asserting 'left wing socialist teachers' and name checking Owen Jones

Maybe you lot can be persuaded that quantum mechanics and relativity are both lefty plots - with the cut and paste skills on display on the various climate threads we'd have a unified theory in no time

Provided of course that you can find it on Breitbart

It always comes back to ideology for the deniers. It's got naff all to do with the science for them because that argument was effectively lost 20 years ago.

If the argument was lost then why did leading climate experts feel the need to falsify evidence to suit their models?

It’s not about being a denier equals right wing or a believer being left, it’s a case of a collective demonising the other side.

Just take a look at the mass hatred caused by brexit fuelled by the embracing left. The labour leaders calling for social and civil unrest but dare to say you disagree and you’re a right wing fascist. The cycle fuels hatred on both sides and I’m prepared to say if the results ended in a fight I wouldn’t be supporting the misleading because I am fed up of constantly having to choke down on the bile of the righteous.

In the workplace I have to listen in meetings about the racists that voted leave whilst I have to sit in sicken day for fear of career limitations if I voice out.

Bringing climate change to left vs right is not the way to go about it. It’s entirely possible to hold right of centre views and be scientifically correct. The same the other way but since 1945 we blindly allowed a liberal approach and blindly accept whatever we were presented with.

In 2004 it became illegal to protest against fuel rises yet the same laws that should prevent XR disrupting cities are ignored. Is it any wonder there is strong resistance?

[turbobloke]

smn159 said:

George Smiley said:

Of course we have some impact but outside our contributions can you care to explain how Greenland was 10,000 years ago covered in rain forest?

There are also natural cycles far more powerful but you cannot control or tax based on some inconvenient truths

How can you possibly argue about the science if your starting position is that it's all a plot to 'control or tax' you?

I'd honestly have more respect for anyone who just said that they accepted the science but not the measures proposed to limit the warming, rather than all this bullst armchair climate expert stuff

Armchair climate expert, how do you escape that definition? How is your opinion worth much?

So you accept 'the science' in which case did you miss this (below)? Or is it a case of accepting the opinions of favourite climate gurus based on gigo from climate models programmed with false assumptions and run on tuned parameterisations - because the science isn't understood or too complex to compute even using so-called supercomputers?

The science based on empirical data, as opposed to the model outputs based on assumptions and approximations, says this, with more of the same in climate threads (not graffiti on armchairs, just peer-reviewed published papers):

Varotsos and Efstathiou in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2019) "it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities"

McKitrick and Christy in Earth & Space Science (2018) showing that the difference between actual data and agw climate model predictions is significant such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected "the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models...is incorrect".

Fleming in Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) "The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate."

[Gadgetmac]

You seem to be pedalling the above post all over the climate threads.

From Skeptical Science:

The paper you refer to is Varotsos & Efstathiou (2019) 'Has global warming already arrived?', the latest serving from a pair of nonsense-writers. Concerning increased height of the tropopause (fingerprint #9), this is found occurring in climate models and within atmispheric measurements, as shown by Santer et al (2001) cited by the OP above and this finding continues to be observed (eg Xian & Homeyer 2018).

Varotsos & Efstathiou ignore this serious work entirely and instead use UAH TP satellite data to assert there is no increase in tropopause height because there is no increasing trend in UAH TP. The use of such data is mind-blowingly stupid, as worthless as using a twelve inch ruler to measure the width of a human hair. UAH TP does not measure tropopause temperature. It measures a wide range of temperatures from the surface up to 24 km. Thus it is measuring the cooling stratosphere as well as the warming troposphere, two strong signals which will overwhelm entirely any tropopause temperature trend.

<yawn>

[smn159]

turbobloke said:

Armchair climate expert, how do you escape that definition?

Maybe by not posting stuff you've apparently cut and pasted from climate denial websites and presenting it uncritically, while pretending that you're interested in getting to the best conclusion demonstrated by the science

It's a fundamentally dishonest approach designed to mislead and motivated by what you'd like to be true.

Edited by smn159 on Saturday 29th February 18:20

[Gadgetmac]

To quote somebody above...

Nailed it, final sentence.