Global Warming is a hoax? Watch

ckingalt
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#121
Report 5 years ago
#121
This thread has carried on for two week with over 120 replies. If read in its' entirety, any objective reader should concede that valid points have been made by both sides. My point is that any statement proclaiming this issue to be "factually resolved" is either disingenuous or idealistically delusional.
0
reply
Pastaferian
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#122
Report 5 years ago
#122
(Original post by ckingalt)
This thread has carried on for two week with over 120 replies. If read in its' entirety, any objective reader should concede that valid points have been made by both sides. My point is that any statement proclaiming this issue to be "factually resolved" is either disingenuous or idealistically delusional.
Science is not a matter of public opinion. Anyone disputing that is either disingenuous or idealistically delusional.

One side has 97% of the climate scientists and the national science academies of all the major countries. The other side has hardly anyone who can be considered to be knowledgeable. Conclusion: the science debate is effectively over, and has been for some time. How can anyone disagree with that? :confused:
0
reply
Extremotroph
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#123
Report 5 years ago
#123
(Original post by Pastaferian)
Science is not a matter of public opinion. Anyone disputing that is either disingenuous or idealistically delusional.

One side has 97% of the climate scientists and the national science academies of all the major countries. The other side has hardly anyone who can be considered to be knowledgeable. Conclusion: the science debate is effectively over, and has been for some time. How can anyone disagree with that? :confused:
Just because "Science" says something is true, does not make it so. Anyone disputing that is either disingenuous or idealistically delusional.
0
reply
Pastaferian
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#124
Report 5 years ago
#124
(Original post by Extremotroph)
Just because "Science" says something is true, does not make it so. Anyone disputing that is either disingenuous or idealistically delusional.
Agreed. There is always the possibility that something may crop up that undermines the theory, but it is increasingly unlikely after four decades.
0
reply
username207685
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#125
Report 5 years ago
#125
(Original post by David_Cook)
What I know is that despite all this global warming and Dr David Viner's predictions last December we experienced a record amount of snowfall.



Even if they weren't deliberately misleading the public they've still proven themselves to be hopelessly inept when it comes to predicting climate trends, they've effectively discredited themselves by talking a lot of hot air. Who can take a climate researcher seriously when his predictions turn out to 100% inaccurate? Lol.
You've once again decided not to provide any evidence that researchers at the CRU have a record of publishing climate predictions in the scientific literature that are routinely proven to be inaccurate. You're instead choosing to base your entire incoherent argument on a single quote from a newspaper interview of one scientist. At least you're consistent.

Also, I wonder why you've only presented Northern Hemisphere snow coverage for the month of December. It must be because the graph of annual means shows a clear trend of lower snow coverage over time in the Northern Hemisphere.

Name:  anom_nhland.gif
Views: 58
Size:  44.8 KB

So not only are you bad at forming arguments and providing evidence, but you're dishonest, too!
0
reply
David_Cook
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#126
Report 5 years ago
#126
(Original post by Pastaferian)
Huh? Again, do you have a response to the science? For example, I would be interested to see your proof that traces (0.04%) of CO2 don't cause warming. There is probably a Nobel Prize in it for you if you succeed.
I'm not in the business of making inaccurate climate predictions, I'll leave that to people like Dr David Viner.

Common sense suggests that humans have an impact on their environment and there's enough geological evidence to suggest that our climate hasn't always remained static: the earth experienced drastic climatic long before Henry Ford was born. But modern climate scientist fraternity seem to have put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5. They seem to believe that just because the climate changes (and nobody has ever argued otherwise) it means all their theories are true, all their predictions are accurate, and we need to take them seriously to help prevent some sort of climate-related disaster. I could point out a couple of facts about marine life if I wanted to, but it doesn't automatically make everything I say on the matter correct because the science is on my side.
0
reply
Pastaferian
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#127
Report 5 years ago
#127
(Original post by David_Cook)
Common sense suggests that humans have an impact on their environment and there's enough geological evidence to suggest that our climate hasn't always remained static: the earth experienced drastic climatic long before Henry Ford was born. But modern climate scientist fraternity seem to have put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5. They seem to believe that just because the climate changes (and nobody has ever argued otherwise) it means all their theories are true, all their predictions are accurate, and we need to take them seriously to help prevent some sort of climate-related disaster. I could point out a couple of facts about marine life if I wanted to, but it doesn't automatically make everything I say on the matter correct because the science is on my side.
Wrong again (the bit in bold). Scientists routinely provide 'confidence intervals' when writing academic papers, so that it is clear to readers how accurate any measurement or calculation is claimed to be. Such statements allow a range of possible values to be communicated, and a lot of research goes into reducing the uncertainty in key parameters (eg, designing satellite instruments which are more accurate with each generation).

Also, an important aspect of the IPCC reports is that the degree of certainty in key findings is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence (from very low to very high) and, when possible, probabilistically with a quantified likelihood (from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain). Confidence in the validity of a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence and the degree of agreement. Probabilistic estimates of quantified measures of uncertainty in a finding are based on things like the statistical analysis of observations. So when someone says in a forum that something is "pretty much settled", the IPCC might say "It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] ..."

However, in terms of what is observed (as opposed to the causes) no qualifications are necessary... "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased."

If you want to know what scientists claim that they know, and how confident they are, read the IPCC reports (www.ipc.ch). If you want a summary of that information, read the Summary For Policymakers (http://www.climatechange2013.org/ima...M_brochure.pdf). And if you want a summary of that, I'm happy to oblige... regarding the proposition that we are causing global warming, the science is pretty much settled, and has been for some time.
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 (30)
23.08%
The paper was reasonable (55)
42.31%
Not feeling great about that exam (25)
19.23%
It was TERRIBLE (20)
15.38%

Watched Threads

View All