Global Warming is a hoax? Watch

David_Cook
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#81
Report 5 years ago
#81
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Note that this person is a journalist, not a scientist.

May you provide a link to the article this journalist wrote?
He was a journalist quoting The Science, and the science back in 2000 was predicting that snow would soon become a thing of the past,


http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...st-724017.html
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#82
Report 5 years ago
#82
(Original post by David_Cook)
He was a journalist quoting The Science, and the science back in 2000 was predicting that snow would soon become a thing of the past,

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...st-724017.html
Serious scientists of the subject have never confused long term climate trends with short term fluctuations in weather - that definitely isn't what 'the science was predicting in 2000' as you put it. I could cite numerous articles from science publications that talked about long term trends and specifically denied that local and short term weather effects were strongly indicative.

However, putting that to one side, it is worth noting that the winters of the 90s and 2000s were regularly amongst the mildest and wettest on record - this was broken in 2008-10, but time will tell if that was a blip. The weather trend has in some ways been corresponding to predictions for the impact of AGW on the UK made as far back as the 1980s - that our winters in particular would be warmer and wetter.
0
reply
David_Cook
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#83
Report 5 years ago
#83
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Serious scientists of the subject have never confused long term climate trends with short term fluctuations in weather - that definitely isn't what 'the science was predicting in 2000' as you put it. I could cite numerous articles from science publications that talked about long term trends and specifically denied that local and short term weather effects were strongly indicative.

However, putting that to one side, it is worth noting that the winters of the 90s and 2000s were regularly amongst the mildest and wettest on record - this was broken in 2008-10, but time will tell if that was a blip. The weather trend has in some ways been corresponding to predictions for the impact of AGW on the UK made as far back as the 1980s - that our winters in particular would be warmer and wetter.

There are too many variables involved in climate to be able to predict with any degree of accuracy that x will equal y. Scientists, (especially scientists from the discredited Climate Research Unit) have displayed an enormous amount of arrogance in their predictions because for a long time they lived in a self-reinforcing bubble of academia insulated from the real world. Articles like the one I posted just go to show how wide of the mark they are and I really enjoy seeing their predictions proven false, hopefully these timely reminders will inject a bit of reality into a discourse that has been monopolised by doom-mongers and eco-professionals dependent on 'climate change' for a living.
1
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#84
Report 5 years ago
#84
(Original post by David_Cook)
There are too many variables involved in climate to be able to predict with any degree of accuracy that x will equal y. Scientists, (especially scientists from the discredited Climate Research Unit) have displayed an enormous amount of arrogance in their predictions because for a long time they lived in a self-reinforcing bubble of academia insulated from the real world. Articles like the one I posted just go to show how wide of the mark they are and I really enjoy seeing their predictions proven false, hopefully these timely reminders will inject a bit of reality into a discourse that has been monopolised by doom-mongers and eco-professionals dependent on 'climate change' for a living.
The Climate Research Unit has not been discredited, the reverse is true. All of the allegations made by sceptics surrounding the stolen emails have proven to be false or exaggerated. The CRU is still very much in business and long after all the sceptic nonsense has been utterly forgotten, it will hopefully still be doing useful work.

You aren't making serious points, you are just mouthing empty phrases from sceptic websites.
0
reply
David_Cook
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#85
Report 5 years ago
#85
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
The Climate Research Unit has not been discredited, the reverse is true. All of the allegations made by sceptics surrounding the stolen emails have proven to be false or exaggerated. The CRU is still very much in business and long after all the sceptic nonsense has been utterly forgotten, it will hopefully still be doing useful work.

You aren't making serious points, you are just mouthing empty phrases from sceptic websites.
On the contrary, I'm the one who's consulted and provided a link to the source material to prove how out of touch the scientists from the CRU are.

Climate change is almost certainly happening as it has done from the dawn of time, but erecting giant windmills and getting the local council to fine people for putting their refuse in the wrong coloured wheelie bin won't solve it (not that it can be solved of course), it just transfers yet more power over to the state and lines the pockets of big business. You don't need a degree in climatology from Norwich to realise that recycling won't make a jot of difference to the icecaps, hopefully the public are beginning to recognise that something is amiss with the way climate change is being presented.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#86
Report 5 years ago
#86
(Original post by David_Cook)
On the contrary, I'm the one who's consulted and provided a link to the source material to prove how out of touch the scientists from the CRU are.

Climate change is almost certainly happening as it has done from the dawn of time, but erecting giant windmills and getting the local council to fine people for putting their refuse in the wrong coloured wheelie bin won't solve it (not that it can be solved of course), it just transfers yet more power over to the state and lines the pockets of big business.
You are just repeating bogus ideas from 'sceptical theory' without factual basis.

For people who want to read for themselves about the so-called 'CRU scandal' (actually just a massive set of largely irrelevant smears aimed against hardworking and underpaid scientists by a massively funded oil-industry backed sceptical lobby), I recommend the excellent Wikipedia article which has hundreds of sources listing all of the investigations into the CRU, which totally and systematically cleared it of any scientific malpractice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climat...il_controversy
0
reply
David_Cook
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#87
Report 5 years ago
#87
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
You are just repeating bogus ideas from 'sceptical theory' without factual basis.

For people who want to read for themselves about the so-called 'CRU scandal' (actually just a massive set of largely irrelevant smears aimed against hardworking and underpaid scientists by a massively funded oil-industry backed sceptical lobby), I recommend the excellent Wikipedia article which has hundreds of sources listing all of the investigations into the CRU, which totally and systematically cleared it of any scientific malpractice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climat...il_controversy
You didn't read the article I linked to did you? The one where Dr David Viner, a senior researcher from the CRU said back in 2000 that "children just aren't going to know what snow is" thanks to global warming. These sort of predictions do discredit the CRU regardless of what went on during the climategate scandal.
0
reply
Pastaferian
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#88
Report 5 years ago
#88
(Original post by David_Cook)
The fact is CO2 makes up something like 0.002% of atmospheric gases. Even if we are contributing to global CO2 (and I'm pretty sure it exists anyway) we're responsible for a tiny fraction of the gases that make up the atmosphere. Global warming isn't a hoax, but it's been widely used by a group of left-leaning ideologues to scare the population into submission while big business and bit government enrich themselves off the proceeds, case in point being David Cameron's father in law who earns £1000 per day from the wind-turbines sited on his land. Nice work of you can get it!
The 'CO2 is a trace gas' argument is often raised by non-scientists, and is easily dismissed - see http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=124 We also know that there is 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere than nature intended, and by analysing the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, we know that fossil fuels are mostly to mostly blame. Btw, the science of climate change is not a 'left-leaning ideology' - all UK parties bar one accept what the scientists are telling us. Of course, it's entirely reasonable to propose different responses to the challenge, depending on one's political outlook. Btw, if you've been reading websites that promote myths about climate change (and I suspect you have), you'll find all the main ones refuted here... http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

(Original post by David_Cook)
"The science has been settled". Has it? [...]
It has indeed. Human activity is responsible for global warming. This is indeed pretty much settled.

(Original post by David_Cook)
There are too many variables involved in climate to be able to predict with any degree of accuracy that x will equal y. Scientists, (especially scientists from the discredited Climate Research Unit) have displayed an enormous amount of arrogance in their predictions because for a long time they lived in a self-reinforcing bubble of academia insulated from the real world. Articles like the one I posted just go to show how wide of the mark they are and I really enjoy seeing their predictions proven false, hopefully these timely reminders will inject a bit of reality into a discourse that has been monopolised by doom-mongers and eco-professionals dependent on 'climate change' for a living.
You are right that climate is complex, but it's not too complex to be studied and understood. People started by asking whether or not the planet's heat budget is in equilibrium, and we now know it isn't - the planet is absorbing more heat than it is radiating back into space (easily verifiable). And, as I said in the previous paragraph, it's clear than human activity is the main cause of the imbalance. Furthermore, since we know that heat drives various physical processes which affect our weather (you'll be familiar with things like the Gulf Stream, El Nino events, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, monsoons and hurricanes), we'd expect that changes in the heat budget and heat distribution will affect those processes, and thereby our weather, and ultimately our climate. Of course, it will always be the case that we'll be better able to look back and see how the climate has changed, as opposed to predicting how it will change, and it doesn't help if a scientist makes an incautious statement (or is quoted out of context).

Incidentally, while you may not be ready to accept that the CRU was cleared of malpractice, you'd also have to discredit the researchers at Reading, Edinburgh, Southampton, Leicester, Cambridge, UCL, Oxford, Leeds, York and other UK universities who are engaged in climate research, as well as the Met Office and other agencies. And that is just the UK. In reality, the idea of a world-wide conspiracy amongst climate researchers is a little far-fetched, and wouldn't explain why the national science agencies of every major country (ie, bodies which are independent of the climate research studies but committed to the scientific method) support the IPCC's conclusions.
0
reply
Rum Ham
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#89
Report 5 years ago
#89
I honestly don't know what to make of global warming. I just done a module on it as part of my astronomy degree (the joys of learning everything in year one -_- ) and the book made it out to be 100% true and more than just a theory. If is really is 100% true then why are so many people not believing it? Maybe it was just the wording of the book but it did sound kinda preachy and like "we have said it is true, so therefore it must be!"
0
reply
pjm600
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#90
Report 5 years ago
#90
(Original post by Yasmin25)
I honestly don't know what to make of global warming. I just done a module on it as part of my astronomy degree (the joys of learning everything in year one -_- ) and the book made it out to be 100% true and more than just a theory. If is really is 100% true then why are so many people not believing it? Maybe it was just the wording of the book but it did sound kinda preachy and like "we have said it is true, so therefore it must be!"
Don't believe the book, follow up the references for yourself.

Why do so many people not believe it? 'Distortion' of the facts.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#91
Report 5 years ago
#91
(Original post by Yasmin25)
I honestly don't know what to make of global warming. I just done a module on it as part of my astronomy degree (the joys of learning everything in year one -_- ) and the book made it out to be 100% true and more than just a theory. If is really is 100% true then why are so many people not believing it? Maybe it was just the wording of the book but it did sound kinda preachy and like "we have said it is true, so therefore it must be!"
You are slightly getting into abstract questions about science - are theories that are widely accepted 'true'? They can be widely taken to be true, but yes, they are still theories. It isn't wise for scientists (or books) to claim that things are "100% true" - but I would be interested to know what book you were reading? I doubt that it says that.

Yes, human-induced climate change is a theory, but it is a theory that has a great deal of pretty convincing evidence behind it.

Unfortunately, there are also some corporations who make money from greenhouse gas emissions (mainly oil and coal) that want to deny this, so they spend a lot of money seeking to distort the facts and influence people that the science is wrong. A lot of the arguments they come up with have been repeatedly shown to be false, but they continue to repeat them and invent new ones, often based on small errors made by climate scientists, or by things that sound like they should be true, but aren't.

This makes it confusing, but thousands of reputable scientists are convinced that the theory is broadly correct and that makes it a good working theory. Not '100% truth', but a good working theory.

That doesn't mean anyone is telling you not to think about it, or to challenge ideas. It's just that you have to be wary about all the lies that are circulated by those wealthy corporations I mentioned. They have a lot of friends on the political right, because some right-wingers have decided that it is all a left-wing conspiracy to deny them their big cars and expensive lifestyles. It is a threat to some of those things if the world doesn't change and we will have to change our lifestyles in different ways if we take it seriously. That's difficult for some people, but it doesn't make the theory wrong, just because some people are loudly complaining about that.
2
reply
Pastaferian
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#92
Report 5 years ago
#92
(Original post by Yasmin25)
I honestly don't know what to make of global warming. I just done a module on it as part of my astronomy degree (the joys of learning everything in year one -_- ) and the book made it out to be 100% true and more than just a theory. If is really is 100% true then why are so many people not believing it? Maybe it was just the wording of the book but it did sound kinda preachy and like "we have said it is true, so therefore it must be!"
Nearly every climate scientist (97% of them) believes it, the national science academies of all the major countries believe it, and the governments of most major countries believe it. On the other side of the argument, there are only a handful dissenters who can be said to be knowledgeable about the science. Support for the proposition that "the earth is warming, we're responsible, and we need to cut CO2 emissions" is pretty overwhelming.

However, the consensus is not as strong when it comes to "... and this is what we should do about it". We have many options, none of them cheap, none of them quick, none of them universally acceptable. And because all options (including the 'do nothing' option) have downsides (eg, cost) the matter has become politicised, because opinions produce votes, votes produce governments, governments produce policies, and policies determines who bears the costs. In the USA, opinions have become very polarised, with scientists and Democrats on one side, and oil companies and Republicans on the other. However, in the UK, we are fortunate that all parties bar one agree on the science, and only UKIP has the intellectually bankrupt position of pretending that the science is wrong in order to push its populist agenda.

There is no prospect that politicians will stop discussing this issue anytime soon, and it's hard to decide if the general public will become more informed or more confused by the deliberations. Of course, it's absolutely right that each party should present its own ideas for addressing the problem, and of course it's absolutely wrong if any pretend that the science is wrong in order to push those ideas. There is still a lot of work to do getting the message across to the general public, and the climate skeptics are fighting a strong and vocal rearguard action, even though the facts are not on their side. Personally, I'm in favour of getting all the facts out there, but it's a hard job knocking down the myriad of myths which the skeptics keep propagating, sometimes decades after they've been been unambiguously debunked. See this link for debunkings of the commonest myths.
0
reply
Kaiser MacCleg
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#93
Report 5 years ago
#93
(Original post by Yasmin25)
I honestly don't know what to make of global warming. I just done a module on it as part of my astronomy degree (the joys of learning everything in year one -_- ) and the book made it out to be 100% true and more than just a theory. If is really is 100% true then why are so many people not believing it? Maybe it was just the wording of the book but it did sound kinda preachy and like "we have said it is true, so therefore it must be!"
You've had a lot of fairly long answers at this point. I just wanted to add that a theory is not the same as an educated guess. A theory, in the scientific sense, is a substantive explanation of numerous observations (facts if you prefer). A given theory may include a number of hypotheses and predictions and will come with an expansive evidence base to support it. Some of the most well-established aspects of scientific knowledge are theories, such as germ theory and the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Absolute certainty is of course impossible in science outside of mathematics, but the idea that humans are actively changing the climate as we speak really is beyond reasonable doubt now, and has been for some time.
0
reply
username207685
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#94
Report 5 years ago
#94
(Original post by David_Cook)
You didn't read the article I linked to did you? The one where Dr David Viner, a senior researcher from the CRU said back in 2000 that "children just aren't going to know what snow is" thanks to global warming. These sort of predictions do discredit the CRU regardless of what went on during the climategate scandal.
Find the published study where he makes these predictions with confidence intervals, p-values, or, you know, any scientific backing. A quote in a newspaper article is not "the science". If you want to assess the credibility of the science coming out of the CRU you look at its academics' publication records, not what one of them said over the phone to a journo from the Independent one time.

Oh, and saying "regardless of what went on during the climategate scandal" rather than acknowledging that all charges of scientific misconduct were thoroughly dismissed by every investigation doesn't make it any less true.
1
reply
Solemn Rain
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#95
Report 5 years ago
#95
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
You are slightly getting into abstract questions about science - are theories that are widely accepted 'true'? They can be widely taken to be true, but yes, they are still theories. It isn't wise for scientists (or books) to claim that things are "100% true" - but I would be interested to know what book you were reading? I doubt that it says that.

Yes, human-induced climate change is a theory, but it is a theory that has a great deal of pretty convincing evidence behind it.

Unfortunately, there are also some corporations who make money from greenhouse gas emissions (mainly oil and coal) that want to deny this, so they spend a lot of money seeking to distort the facts and influence people that the science is wrong. A lot of the arguments they come up with have been repeatedly shown to be false, but they continue to repeat them and invent new ones, often based on small errors made by climate scientists, or by things that sound like they should be true, but aren't.

This makes it confusing, but thousands of reputable scientists are convinced that the theory is broadly correct and that makes it a good working theory. Not '100% truth', but a good working theory.

That doesn't mean anyone is telling you not to think about it, or to challenge ideas. It's just that you have to be wary about all the lies that are circulated by those wealthy corporations I mentioned. They have a lot of friends on the political right, because some right-wingers have decided that it is all a left-wing conspiracy to deny them their big cars and expensive lifestyles. It is a threat to some of those things if the world doesn't change and we will have to change our lifestyles in different ways if we take it seriously. That's difficult for some people, but it doesn't make the theory wrong, just because some people are loudly complaining about that.
You always post an A* star grade TSR post

I agree is all I can say.
0
reply
David_Cook
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#96
Report 5 years ago
#96
(Original post by betaglucowhat)
Find the published study where he makes these predictions with confidence intervals, p-values, or, you know, any scientific backing. A quote in a newspaper article is not "the science". If you want to assess the credibility of the science coming out of the CRU you look at its academics' publication records, not what one of them said over the phone to a journo from the Independent one time.

Oh, and saying "regardless of what went on during the climategate scandal" rather than acknowledging that all charges of scientific misconduct were thoroughly dismissed by every investigation doesn't make it any less true.
If, as an expert he didn't believe that snow was going to disappear due to global warming why did he go on record to a journalist from a national newspaper claiming that snow would soon be a thing of the past? Is it ok for a professional who's livelihood depends upon accurate meteorological predictions to get it so hopelessly wrong? Not in my opinion, no: it's an embarrassment to science. But this isn't and has never about been the science, global warming is a ideological movement designed to remove individual liberty and hand more power over to the state. Global warming is just the vehicle to help achieve this goal.
0
reply
Pastaferian
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#97
Report 5 years ago
#97
(Original post by David_Cook)
If, as an expert he didn't believe that snow was going to disappear due to global warming why did he go on record to a journalist from a national newspaper claiming that snow would soon be a thing of the past? Is it ok for a professional who's livelihood depends upon accurate meteorological predictions to get it so hopelessly wrong? Not in my opinion, no: it's an embarrassment to science. But this isn't and has never about been the science, global warming is a ideological movement designed to remove individual liberty and hand more power over to the state. Global warming is just the vehicle to help achieve this goal.
It's conceivable that he was guilty of hyperbole, but frankly it's more likely that he was quoted out of context. But for the sake of argument, let's assume he's guilty of gross distortion of the facts and move on. The next question would be... does your misunderstanding of the science rest on anything other than what one scientist (out of thousands) may or may not have said many years ago? And how do you defend your claim that "global warming is a ideological movement designed to remove individual liberty"? Perhaps you are confusing the science (the proposition that "the earth is warming and we are responsible" is pretty much settled) with the differing opinions about what we should do about it?
0
reply
username207685
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#98
Report 5 years ago
#98
(Original post by David_Cook)
If, as an expert he didn't believe that snow was going to disappear due to global warming why did he go on record to a journalist from a national newspaper claiming that snow would soon be a thing of the past? Is it ok for a professional who's livelihood depends upon accurate meteorological predictions to get it so hopelessly wrong? Not in my opinion, no: it's an embarrassment to science. But this isn't and has never about been the science, global warming is a ideological movement designed to remove individual liberty and hand more power over to the state. Global warming is just the vehicle to help achieve this goal.
I really don't know why he said any particular thing to a journalist on or off the record. What I do know is that he didn't publish what he said in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. What I do know is that no part of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change rests on what he said. What I do know is that what he said was never used as part of an evidence-base to formulate government or intergovernmental policy. What I do know is that the scientific credibility of a department full of researchers publishing well-evidenced and unfalsified research over the course of decades cannot be called into question based on what one person said to a journalist in one interview, particularly when several independent investigations have judged that department to be innocent of any charges of scientific misconduct levied against it by the anthropogenic climate change denial lobby.

What I do know is that when you were asked for evidence for a trend of climate researchers (particularly those from the CRU) predominantly publishing now-falsified predictions in scientific journals, you replied with "this isn't and has never been about the science". I'm glad that one of you has finally admitted it.
1
reply
biggronn
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#99
Report 5 years ago
#99
Humans cause global warming.
0
reply
David_Cook
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#100
Report 5 years ago
#100
(Original post by Pastaferian)
It's conceivable that he was guilty of hyperbole, but frankly it's more likely that he was quoted out of context. But for the sake of argument, let's assume he's guilty of gross distortion of the facts and move on. The next question would be... does your misunderstanding of the science rest on anything other than what one scientist (out of thousands) may or may not have said many years ago? And how do you defend your claim that "global warming is a ideological movement designed to remove individual liberty"? Perhaps you are confusing the science (the proposition that "the earth is warming and we are responsible" is pretty much settled) with the differing opinions about what we should do about it?
I don't believe he was guilty of hyperbole, I believe he's guilty of allowing this particular brand of group-think to cloud his judgement to the point where he seriously thought that in a few short years snow would be a dim and distant memory. This isn't some anonymous internet blogger we're talking about: it's Dr David Viner from the supposedly world renowned Climate Research Unit. If he can make such dreadful predictions with all the access to The Science he has what makes you think that you, or anybody else for that matter is in a position to predict what the climate is going to be like in 10 or 20 years from now?

As I helpfully informed you before CO2 IS a trace gas that forms ~ 0.04% of the atmosphere, i.e it's hardly present. These claims about the global warming bogeyman are nothing but scare stories designed to empty our bank accounts with Green levies and eco-taxes.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your Edexcel GCSE Maths Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - feeling positive (535)
26.37%
The paper was reasonable (884)
43.57%
Not feeling great about that exam (396)
19.52%
It was TERRIBLE (214)
10.55%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise