Climate Change may not be a bad our best brains feared.

Climate Change may not be a bad our best brains feared.

Author
Discussion

Cold

15,207 posts

89 months

Wednesday 20th September 2017
quotequote all


Graphs are fun. yes

Disco Infiltrator

Original Poster:

979 posts

81 months

Wednesday 20th September 2017
quotequote all
Colonial said:
mondeoman said:
No, really, I'm not. Read wickens post, in full, particularly the part I quoted, then read my response to that part.

The arrogance of "the smart ones (like me)" comment. Brilliant.

Science is data, not consensus. And the data is totally inconclusive, so the only consensus you can have is "we don't know".
The data is not "totally inconclusive". It's actually pretty conclusive. Which is why scientific consensus exists.

I have to look at the modelling for things like predicted coastal erosion modelling for storm surges from even minor sea level rise for 100 years into the future. It's not pretty.

I'd be over the moon if the current modelling is proved wrong. Great news. I'd be happy to say "yep I was wrong" but at the moment that is as scientifically robust as supporting homeopathy.
Did you not read the article I posted in my first post? Modelling has been proved wrong.

Even Roger Harrabin agreed on yesterday's PM, and put it down to a decrease in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, that there was very little chance of anything more than a 1.5C increase. Which is why I started this thread.


Have another from The Independent.


Have Scientists really admitted that Climate Change sceptics are right?


www.independent.co.uk/infact/climate-change-scepti...


There's none so blind and all that...

Colonial

13,553 posts

204 months

Wednesday 20th September 2017
quotequote all
Disco Infiltrator said:
Did you not read the article I posted in my first post? Modelling has been proved wrong.

Even Roger Harrabin agreed on yesterday's PM, and put it down to a decrease in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, that there was very little chance of anything more than a 1.5C increase. Which is why I started this thread.


Have another from The Independent.


Have Scientists really admitted that Climate Change sceptics are right?


www.independent.co.uk/infact/climate-change-scepti...


There's none so blind and all that...
I don't think that independent article says what you think it says.

Hint. Sometimes there is more to an article than a snappy headline.

Pesty

42,655 posts

255 months

Wednesday 20th September 2017
quotequote all
Ali G said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Spactard
Reported for being spectacular offensive
laugh


Mark Benson

7,498 posts

268 months

Wednesday 20th September 2017
quotequote all
Wiccan of Darkness said:
I'd like to know who funded that study. I bet it was Exxon. They have their grubby prints all over dozens of 'climate change is not as bad as we feared' studies. Always useful to find out how a study was financed.
The problem for us non-sciency types is that there appears to be a vast amount of funding up for grabs for studies to prove the existence of climate change too. While the media undoubtedly adds it's spin, I find it difficult to read any studies on climate change and see impartiality.

Therefore it makes it very difficult to decide who's data and opinion we believe. Personally I no longer believe that 'scientists' (as a group, when referenced in 'Scientists now believe' articles) are the unimpeachable boffins they were once held to be, perhaps they never were.

And when data has to be manipulated before being presented to me, I immediately become suspicious. I've tried, I really have. But when you have one side producing statistics and graphs that 'prove' one thing, and the other trotting out supposedly the same set of stats but showing them a different way to disprove the theory then it's very difficult to come to a decision. The graph above with a start date chosen to show what the author wants us to see, a steep rise in temperature is a good example - take the scale back over hundreds of years and we see something different, milennia we see something different again.

So to me everyone appears to have an agenda/motive and no-one comes out as believable, "Trust me I'm a scientist" no longer works.

jet_noise

5,630 posts

181 months

Wednesday 20th September 2017
quotequote all
Wiccan of Darkness said:
I'd like to know who funded that study. I bet it was Exxon. They have their grubby prints all over dozens of 'climate change is not as bad as we feared' studies. Always useful to find out how a study was financed.
Much of your post, WoD, is reasoned. This however is tin-foil-conspiracy cobblers.
What you need to be asking is who is funding all the alarmist papers?
And why is there so much money available for them?

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Wednesday 20th September 2017
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
Let's just let me get this clear: the best brains in the world were wrong, and the evidence of this is unimpeachable as it is from the best brains in the world.

Yep, seems all too logical to me.
It's amazing. wobble

When climate scientists say things could be bad, we get endless threads about how they're all corrupt and the data is fraudulent and it's all an attempt by the UN to raise taxes or impose communism or whatever. Great lengths are sought to dig up anything that might paint climate science as anything other than utterly perfect, and there are grand conspiracy theories about how all the world's scientists are keeping quiet about it because they live in fear of... I dunno really.

But at the merest sniff from those same climate scientists saying it might not be as bad as thought, those critics are - all of a sudden - absolutely fine with them. They're now more than happy to accept what those corrupt, fraudulent climate scientists are saying without question (and often without actually reading the science itself). laugh

You have to make up your mind whether you trust these scientists or not. You either accept the science or you don't. You can't choose to accept it only when it fits your preconceptions; that's not how it works.

Colonial

13,553 posts

204 months

Wednesday 20th September 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
It's amazing. wobble

When climate scientists say things could be bad, we get endless threads about how they're all corrupt and the data is fraudulent and it's all an attempt by the UN to raise taxes or impose communism or whatever. Great lengths are sought to dig up anything that might paint climate science as anything other than utterly perfect, and there are grand conspiracy theories about how all the world's scientists are keeping quiet about it because they live in fear of... I dunno really.

But at the merest sniff from those same climate scientists saying it might not be as bad as thought, those critics are - all of a sudden - absolutely fine with them. They're now more than happy to accept what those corrupt, fraudulent climate scientists are saying without question (and often without actually reading the science itself). laugh

You have to make up your mind whether you trust these scientists or not. You either accept the science or you don't. You can't choose to accept it only when it fits your preconceptions; that's not how it works.
SJW! BBC! 3 letter acronyms!

Prinny

1,669 posts

98 months

Wednesday 20th September 2017
quotequote all
TLA you mean? wink

skyrover

12,668 posts

203 months

Wednesday 20th September 2017
quotequote all
Colonial said:
skyrover said:
Th coast has always eroded.

The north sea used to be forest and grasslands.

People/the world will adapt.
Oh. Ok. Thanks random internet dude. You clearly know more than the international scientific community.
Your welcome

Now get on with your life and stop worrying

Jinx

11,344 posts

259 months

Wednesday 20th September 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
It's amazing. wobble

When climate scientists say things could be bad, we get endless threads about how they're all corrupt and the data is fraudulent and it's all an attempt by the UN to raise taxes or impose communism or whatever. Great lengths are sought to dig up anything that might paint climate science as anything other than utterly perfect, and there are grand conspiracy theories about how all the world's scientists are keeping quiet about it because they live in fear of... I dunno really.

But at the merest sniff from those same climate scientists saying it might not be as bad as thought, those critics are - all of a sudden - absolutely fine with them. They're now more than happy to accept what those corrupt, fraudulent climate scientists are saying without question (and often without actually reading the science itself). laugh

You have to make up your mind whether you trust these scientists or not. You either accept the science or you don't. You can't choose to accept it only when it fits your preconceptions; that's not how it works.
You can accept AGW and reject CAGW durbs. This paper is a less likely to get CAGW paper. Only in your mind does it have to be black or white.

Yipper

5,964 posts

89 months

Wednesday 20th September 2017
quotequote all
Global warming is wildly exaggerated by liberal control freak maniacs.

The world has been heating up since the end of the last Ice Age. It is nothing new.

The world's population has risen from 1 million to 7 billion during global warming.

The planet's human population is bigger, healthier and living longer than ever before in all of history.

Global warming = good.

Colonial

13,553 posts

204 months

Wednesday 20th September 2017
quotequote all
skyrover said:
Your welcome

Now get on with your life and stop worrying
Maybe you should also let NASA know the earth is flat so they can stop wasting money on space exploration.

Ali G

3,526 posts

281 months

Wednesday 20th September 2017
quotequote all
Colonial said:
Maybe you should also let NASA know the earth is flat so they can stop wasting money on space exploration.
A sly dig at those who are not entirely wedded to the CAGW hypothesis and must therefore be dillusional to the point of presuming that the universe has only two dimensions

mondeoman

11,430 posts

265 months

Wednesday 20th September 2017
quotequote all
Just waiting for the 'DENIER!' screeching to begin. Sound so similar to 'UNBELIEVER!'. HERETIC! STONE HIM!

Tortured data can't hide the fact that it's been warmer and it's been cooler and still can't show a link to co2 and temperature, and still can't say what the right co2 level or temperature is. Nor a link to weather "events" so beloved of the mejjia.

Here's one for you - if this (climate change(!)) REALLY is a threat to mankind and the world as we know it (because the science is settled after all), why have we seen a worldwide [u]decrease[/u] in the number of weather stations, why aren't there a swarm of up-to-date satellites with state-of-the-art instrumentation monitoring earth wide energy influx and outflow, fleets of weather balloons providing global day-to-day atmospheric energy content data, a veritable armada of Argo bouys (not the 3500 there are to cover 370million square kilometres ie 1 for every 100,000km2) and enormous, concerted, UN-driven boycotts of Chinese, US, Russian and Indian products (4 top CO2 producers). Because if it's real, we should be diverting huge funds to monitor and measure. But we're not. We're pissing around with windmills, landowner subsidies and solar subsidies and and and.

Oilchange

8,421 posts

259 months

Wednesday 20th September 2017
quotequote all
jet_noise said:
Much of your post, WoD, is reasoned. This however is tin-foil-conspiracy cobblers.
What you need to be asking is who is funding all the alarmist papers?
And why is there so much money available for them?
Yes, this is it. Find out who is funding it, with how much money, how many jobs have been created with that money and how many reputations are on the line if the science becomes flawed. And what people will do to ensure the continued flow of that money...

glazbagun

14,257 posts

196 months

Wednesday 20th September 2017
quotequote all
mondeoman said:
Here's one for you - if this (climate change(!)) REALLY is a threat to mankind and the world as we know it (because the science is settled after all), why have we seen a worldwide [u]decrease[/u] in the number of weather stations, why aren't there a swarm of up-to-date satellites with state-of-the-art instrumentation monitoring earth wide energy influx and outflow, fleets of weather balloons providing global day-to-day atmospheric energy content data, a veritable armada of Argo bouys (not the 3500 there are to cover 370million square kilometres ie 1 for every 100,000km2) and enormous, concerted, UN-driven boycotts of Chinese, US, Russian and Indian products (4 top CO2 producers). Because if it's real, we should be diverting huge funds to monitor and measure. But we're not. We're pissing around with windmills, landowner subsidies and solar subsidies and and and.
I'd read the book We Did Nothing by Linda Polman re: the UN. The UN can't agree on the colour of the sky when it opposes one permanent members national interest, the US, Russia and China each hold the UN by the balls. The only thing it is really set up for is stopping neighbours going to war but it is hamstrung by the SC even there, as North Korea recently shows.

Personally it strikes me as quite straightforward that releasing ancient carbon dioxide back into our modern atmosphere will have an effect on the climate- rapid changes in the atmospheric makeup have happened before during previous extinctions, and while we might not be changing it as fast as some truly terrible volcanic winter nightmare, our fossil fuel consumption only seems to be headed one way in the near future.

It wouldn't take much to cause real problems, I suspect. How many bad rice or corn harvests would it take for wars to start breaking out, for example?

glazbagun

14,257 posts

196 months

Wednesday 20th September 2017
quotequote all
jet_noise said:
Much of your post, WoD, is reasoned. This however is tin-foil-conspiracy cobblers.
What you need to be asking is who is funding all the alarmist papers?
And why is there so much money available for them?
I'm not WoD, but your idea seems the more tin foil from my POV. The profits of almost every industry and surplus of every economy is threatened by anything that slates their cheapest forms of energy, before we even get into the political power that oil gives nations. The pool of money to maintain business as usual must be infinitely larger than that of the manufacturers of windmills or states with loads of sun and nothing else, or anyone else who would gain to a more expensive energy source.

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Wednesday 20th September 2017
quotequote all
Look at global temperature reconstructions for the past half million years. We are now living in a warm period (lucky us), one that is not particularly special in any way.

Disco Infiltrator

Original Poster:

979 posts

81 months

Wednesday 20th September 2017
quotequote all
jet_noise said:
Much of your post, WoD, is reasoned. This however is tin-foil-conspiracy cobblers.
What you need to be asking is who is funding all the alarmist papers?
And why is there so much money available for them?
Well, the world's richest country is also our largest battery manufacturer.

China.