Global Warming - So What

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Macromia
    replied
    Thanks.

    Now you need to consider what this demonstrates.

    If anything, what it shows is that even a relatively small scientific project (probably involving, at most, a few hundred people in two countries (perhaps with some additional consultants elsewhere) can't hide potentially false claims when people want to see them exposed.

    Whether or not Covid-19 came from a lab is off topic on this thread, but this pretty much proves that a huge climate change conspiracy just to get funding wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell.

    Leave a comment:


  • kelbol
    replied
    https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2414
    https://www.timeshighereducation.com...ab-leak-letter
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...377-5/fulltext

    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    Originally posted by Ted.E.Bear View Post
    "...Plimer has stated that his business interests do not affect the independence of his beliefs"
    The important point here is that he wouldn't need to just "state" this if there was actually any scientific basis for his position - he would be able to demonstrate that his position was valid by reference to supporting evidence that could withstand criticism.

    The fact that he has never done that speaks volumes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    Originally posted by kelbol View Post
    Somebody with a bit more authority saying what I mentioned earlier:
    "the vast bulk of the scientific community, including most major scientific academies, is prejudiced by the prospect of research funding".
    "The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism" and "the IPCC process is unrelated to science".

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
    Ian Plimer has basically no 'authority' at all and is 'projecting' his own failings on to others.

    I genuinely mean no offence, but what you have done here is a prime example of confirmation bias by cherry-picking. You have 'homed in' on a few quotes that agree with your opinions, and I would say that you have done that without any proper consideration of the context shown by rest of the information on the Wikipedia page.

    Key points include the following:
    1. Unlike many 'climate change critics', Plimer is actually a scientist who has work published in the peer reviewed literature, which means that he knows that science requires proper publication of evidence and citation of sources.
    2. He has NO published peer-reviewed work about any aspect of climate.
    3. His career, and peer-reviewed publications, including his current income, is tied to Australian mining (mainly minerals, but also with links to fossil fuels). He has made a very decent amount from these mining interests - and believes that proposals to reduce carbon emissions could decimate The Australian mining industry.
    4. The claims that he has made about climate change have been widely disputed by scientists whose careers have involved climate, and who do publish climate research in peer reviewed journals. These scientists say that he misrepresents the scientific position.
    5. Plimer has also been critical of 'creationism', but his behaviour when challenging them has been criticised even by people who agree with his anti-creationist position.
    6. In the late 1990s he lost an expensive legal case against a creationist (although it doesn't say this on the Wikipedia page, Plimer said at the time that he would have to declare himself bankrupt).

    Putting all this together, Plimer has no expertise on climate issues and the people who do have expertise disagree with him and say that he isn't representing the science honestly.
    He was pretty much made bankrupt in the late 1990s but is now making quite a lot of money from an industry that he thinks will be decimated by measures that are proposed to reduce carbon emissions.
    As a genuine scientist (at least formally) he is well aware that scientists have to support their claims by providing supporting evidence - and that this, and the methodologies that should allow others to confirm their findings are what is published in peer reviewed papers. Knowing this means that he is well aware that no scientist can get away with simply publishing papers that they believe will support what the people funding the research want to hear.

    There is a reason why people like Plimer (and Monkton who the Wikipedia page says he is associated with) don't publish their claims about climate change in peer reviewed journals, and instead push them by publishing books and on blogs, Youtube, and in the media. It is NOT because there is a conspiracy against them, it is because they lack the evidence to support their assertions (it's very, very easy to do an online search to find honest scientists, and other people who are scientifically literate, 'debunking' the claims made by Plimer). Just one example of a scientists debunk here:
    https://bravenewclimate.files.wordpr.../plimer2a0.pdf

    And an example of how Plimer actively tries to evade having to actually support his claims here (something that no scientist who thinks he has a reasonable argument would do):
    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...george-monbiot



    Originally posted by kelbol View Post
    Sounds familiar. Wasn't there a medical researcher stating in The Lancet that Covid was not created in a lab? And then it was found he had links to this research and made this claim because he didn't want funding cut. Scientists are human, first and foremost.
    Was there?
    It's possible, but unless you can provide a citation that allows this claim to be investigated it's nothing more than an unsupported allegation - exactly the sort of unsupported claim that conspiracy theorists love to run with.



    Originally posted by kelbol View Post
    I wonder how many people have been turned off this green crusade after seeing the hypocrisy of leaders in their private jets at COP26.
    Probably quite a few - but that's largely because they don't use any genuine critical thought.

    The majority of people in positions of power (particularly clowns like Bo Jo) DON'T want to give up private jets, frequent holidays abroad, and all of the other extravagances that they enjoy. With the exception of Donald Trump, who really was just a dumb puppet, they aren't stupid though - even Bo Jo has enough sense to realise that he will be seen as a hypocrite, he's just arrogant enough to believe that he can get away with it (and currently he probably can).

    The idea that climate change is nothing more than a huge global conspiracy to make people pay more taxes is preposterous. Governments don't get along with each other well enough to pull anything like that off, they don't need to try and run a global conspiracy if they want to increase taxes, and they wouldn't choose one that goes against their own interests (let alone pay scientists enough to make it worth hundreds of thousands of them all involving themselves in a conspiracy of this type).

    Leave a comment:


  • Ted.E.Bear
    replied
    There is some irony to that claim....

    "He is currently the non-executive deputy chairman of KEFI Minerals since 2006,[31] independent non-executive director of Ivanhoe Australia Limited since 2007,[32] chairman of TNT Mines Limited "...etc

    "According to a columnist in The Age, Plimer earned over $400,000 (AUD) from several of these companies, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars.[40] Plimer has stated that his business interests do not affect the independence of his beliefs"

    I am sure that most scientists would be able to earn more if they were denying climate change than they do working for universities and research institutes.

    Leave a comment:


  • kelbol
    replied
    Somebody with a bit more authority saying what I mentioned earlier:
    "the vast bulk of the scientific community, including most major scientific academies, is prejudiced by the prospect of research funding".
    "The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism" and "the IPCC process is unrelated to science".

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer


    Sounds familiar. Wasn't there a medical researcher stating in The Lancet that Covid was not created in a lab? And then it was found he had links to this research and made this claim because he didn't want funding cut. Scientists are human, first and foremost.

    I may not have a plethora of scientific literature to cite at every corner, but I do have some common sense and independence of thought. I wonder how many people have been turned off this green crusade after seeing the hypocrisy of leaders in their private jets at COP26.


    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    An attempt to repost links from an earlier post that remains 'unapproved':

    The actual scientific position:
    • Current warming is almost entirely due to human activities.
    • Without the warming caused by humans the Earth would NOT be warming and would most likely actually be cooling slightly, heading towards a period of glaciation (although that wouldn't be expected for thousands of years, and has now likely already been delayed for at least several thousand more).
    • Rather than being an issue for people many generations in the future, if significant action is not taken now, it is children who are being born NOW who will have to start to deal with the effects.
    • Current warming is almost entirely due to man, so adverse effects are ONLY "inevitable" if the global population don't take sufficient action to reduce the effects. The planet, on the other hand, WILL heal itself, but this may take over 100,000 years and be without humans and a large percentage of other current life forms.
    • Scientists have sufficient data to assess about 140 years worth of global temperature data in detail, which can be expanded to many thousands of years with appropriate use of confidence limits, and are quite confident that comparisons with the past are appropriate.
    • The long term forcings that affect the Earth's climate are mostly well enough understood, and predictable enough, for very confident predictions of how the climate will change in the long term. Short term fluctuations are less easy to predict, but these have little effect on the long term trend.

    Additional information about the scientific position on climate change (which fully supports what I have said here, and contradicts landlord-man's assertions) can be found on the following websites. Other pages on the same sites also contain good information:

    Why scientists think 100% of [current] global warming is due to humans (CarbonBrief):
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...-due-to-humans

    Why Milankovitch Cycles can't explain the Earth's current warming (NASA):
    https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/w...rrent-warming/

    A summary of natural warming cycles (Open Source Systems, Science, Solutions):
    http://ossfoundation.us/projects/env.../natural-cycle

    Potential effects of climate change on wildlife within this century (WWF):
    https://www.wwf.org.uk/learn/effects-of/climate-change

    A paper looking at the 'human cost' of climate change:
    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...019.02323/full

    How accurate are climate models (Skeptical Science):
    https://skepticalscience.com/climate...termediate.htm

    And a ideal of how many scientific papers mention climate change (Google Scholar - with over 800,000 results from just the last 5 years):
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?a...=en&as_sdt=0,5


    There is also the Climate Change playlist on the Potholer54 Youtube channel which is worth a look (linked in an earlier post).

    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
    What, exactly, is it that you think is the problem with this article?

    By trying to associate it with 'Trigger's broom handle', it seems that you are suggesting that the article is saying that the same snow has been present, but this is very clearly not what the article says if you actually read it (let alone what the position held by the scientist quoted is - which is always potentially entirely different from what any media article claims).

    When you actually read the article, all it actually says is that a patch of snow that usually persists for many years at a time is now melting away with increasing frequency (with this year included), and that this has been put down to increasing temperatures resulting from climate change.
    The article doesn't make any mention of the underlying cause of the climate change so, since you claim not to deny that climate change is occurring, what is it in the article that you are objecting to?




    Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
    No debate needed PMSL
    Even if this MEDIA ARTICLE had made claims that were very clearly exaggerations, even so ridiculous that they would look out of place in even the most extreme fantasy story, that would only reinforce what I have previously said - that you shouldn't be getting your understanding of the scientific position on climate change from media stories.

    If you think that any aspect of the scientific position is debatable - then actually debate the scientific position.
    That's not what the people who deny that anthropomorphic climate change is real do though (with this thread being little more than yet another demonstration of this). What 'anthropomorphic climate change deniers instead do is base their denial on misrepresentation of the actual science that they read in the popular media and on blog posts - and they often even misunderstand what their own 'sources' say.

    Leave a comment:


  • landlord-man
    replied
    Climate Change in Action - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...lands-58980007

    Triggers Broom Handle - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAh8HryVaeY

    Both equally funny.

    No debate needed PMSL

    Leave a comment:


  • nukecad
    replied
    I'm guilty of using inaccurate, shorthand, terms myself when it suits convenince.

    But I guess we wouldn't be human if certain ones didn't get up our individual noses.

    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    Originally posted by nukecad View Post
    There is a known 60 year weather (rainfall, and temperatures) cycle, and other known cycles, that should be taken into account. It's not just long term variations.
    I agree - and where they are relevant shorter term variation IS taken into account in climate models.

    There are a number of short term weather cycles that have been recognised (including 'Atlantic & Pacific Multidecadal Oscillations' and the much shorter term El Nino/La Nino), but both these and short term effects due to things like volcanic eruptions tend not to affect long term trends.
    I have seen some very convincing figures that take the measured surface air temperatures for the 60 years between 1880 and 1940 and superimpose the pattern from the measured temperatures between 1940 and 2000 on top of these. The correlation between temperatures during these two consecutive 60 year periods is remarkably good and does seem to suggest the temperatures followed a similar pattern of cooling/warming.
    There are two very clear problems for people who want to assert that this means that current warming is explained by these 60 year cycles:
    1. Although, during these two 60 year periods, global temperatures follow exactly the same pattern, starting with warm temperatures before cooling and then warming again, both periods end with warmer temperatures than when they began, so the second 60 years started at a higher temperature than during the first 60 years and ended even higher.
    2. Temperatures since 2000 should be falling if they followed the same pattern, but have actually increased.

    Originally posted by nukecad View Post
    The point that I'm trying to make is that any 'popular' debate such as this one tends to be quickly hijacked by those with extreme viewpoints on either side.
    Which means that any moderate viewpoints get quickly shouted down and sidelined.
    I agree, which is why I have always said, and will continue to say, that it is the evidence based scientific position that should be followed - not what those who don't understand, refuse to accept the science say, and not what people who intentionally misrepresent the science say.
    As for "moderate viewpoints" though, that depends very much on what you consider to be a 'moderate viewpoint'. The position that should be followed is not whatever falls between the two extremes, it is whatever the science supports.

    Currently temperature, sea level and polar ice extent mostly fits within the ranges predicted by climate models that most closely match actual carbon-dioxide emissions - although typically close to the most negative part of the predicted variance.

    P.S. Regarding your earlier comment about 'Climate deniers' being a bad term, many terms aren't particularly accurate if taken literally (for example, most landlords are now neither lords or owners of landed estates). You know what is meant by 'Climate denier' even if it has been shortened from 'Anthropomorphic climate change denier' which would be more literally accurate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    Originally posted by JK0 View Post
    Interesting talk by Vernon Coleman tonight: Global Warming: Lies, Fraud and Hypocrisy in Glasgow
    This is a perfect example of why so many people disagree with you that you feel a need to list them in a 'signature' that appears on all posts.

    Dr Vernon Coleman is a retired GP who doesn't seem to have published any medical research, let alone research on anything even vaguely related to climate (although he has had a few letters published in medical journals, as well as an article on "why patients should keep their own medical records).

    He is most famous as a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer, among other things claiming that AIDS is a hoax, that Covid is a hoax, and that people giving Covid vaccinations are war criminals.
    https://www.vernoncoleman.com/aids.htm
    https://www.factcheck.org/2021/02/sc...accine-safety/

    His allegations of conspiracies involving medical topics are considered laughable - so why should anyone treat his outlandish claims about any other subject as anything other than the rantings of a mad man?

    Leave a comment:


  • nukecad
    replied
    There is a known 60 year weather (rainfall, and temperatures) cycle, and other known cycles, that should be taken into account. It's not just long term variations.

    The point that I'm trying to make is that any 'popular' debate such as this one tends to be quickly hijacked by those with extreme viewpoints on either side.
    Which means that any moderate viewpoints get quickly shouted down and sidelined.

    Unfortunately that's the way politics and debating goes - people think they can prove something by 'shouting' the loudest and/or the most often.
    (And unfortunately it often works, so it's not going to stop).

    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    Originally posted by nukecad View Post
    But both causes of climate change have a part to play in the overall scenario.
    Yes, but you aren't taking into account the time scales.

    Anthropomorphic Climate Change (i.e. the effect caused directly by humans) are already starting to occur and will likely be causing significant effects by the end of this century regardless of how much action is taken now.

    Natural processes, on the other hand, would not be leading to any significant change for at least a few thousand years - and since the natural slow cooling has already been delayed by the warming effects of human carbon dioxide emissions, natural cooling over the next few centuries will only be countering the warming that has already occurred.

    I linked to several sites that explain the scientific position in a post that is currently 'unapproved'.
    Perhaps Moderator2 can approve that post

    Leave a comment:


  • nukecad
    replied
    The problem comes when both sides of the debate insist that their view is totally right and the other view is totally wrong.

    But both causes of climate change have a part to play in the overall scenario.

    So we have to account for both, and tackle them both as best we can.

    That means both cutting emissions to tackle human caused warming, and planning long term for the changes brought by natural cycles.

    Focusing on one cause only and ignoring the other is misguided.

    Just because someone points out that the climate cycles naturally doesn't mean that they deny human causes of climate change are important.
    But if they try to make what is a valid point they are instantly branded as 'climate deniers' by some.
    (A term that has always struck me as stupid in itself, nobody denies that we have a climate).

    And Macromia is correct in that a lot of those one-sided views are being actively fostered/promoted by 'interested parties/groups' on either side of what should be an unnecessary debate.
    The whole debate itself is just an example of such misdirection.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X