Marshmallow Marshalls Moralising Muscle


#121

That makes sense, otherwise it’d be way too complex I would think.

As a google expert now, I see they say unlike the weather models the climate models are probabilistic. That’s one of my beefs about the tropical cyclone forecasts I get from the computer. They only show the one solution with no indication of the error.


#122

I’m not sure there is a specific thing as a “climatologist” but people from many different fields that study different aspects that have to do with constantly change. Geologists, chemists, oceanographers, etc all contribute and when they focus on climate related aspects of their field they are a “climate scientist”.


#123

We agree at last! Hoooray! So why did you denigrate a list of over 31,000 scientists without studying individual expertise of those people as not being “climate scientists”? Why are my “climate scientists” rubbish and yours saints? Where’s your list of over 31,00 “climate scientists” saying the opposite? It doesn’t exist.


#124

Not one so called climate model has been scientifically verified. In other words they are not sufficiently accurate to be trusted. They are a scientific goal of the climate scientists, but unachieved so far. In practical terms none predicted the pause in temperature rise over the last two decades, the vast majority have predicted higher temperature rises than have actually been observed and measured (a difficult thing in itself) and the dilemma is that the scientists can’t explain the growing difference between their highly expensive and complicated models and the real world observations that are the basis of science.

So we should not be making decisions with weighty consequences on projections of computer models that are unverified. Would you trust your cargo loading and stability to a new computer model that came with the warning “not verified” but it’s our best guess?

Top this off with the more recent revelations that up to 50% of peer reviewed papers in the scientific literature are unable to be replicated. This included medical studies. Your heart disease treatment may well be based on rubbish science. Attempts to prove this wrong by a sceptical research group actually tried to replicates a large number of studies and found over 50% were unable to be replicated ie false. That’s the scientific method.

My plea to all on this forum is to not be so trusting of esoteric science in the new field of climate science, not to drink the Kool Aid of scientists predicting climate armageddon despite the world surviving reasonably well for a few billion years.

Why am I pretty much all alone?


#125

You’re not…


#126

Because the guy that did the survey admitted that he was surveying non climate scientists.

That’s never been done because it’s meaningless. Personal opinions have very little to do with science, the research all concludes that climate change is man made and that’s all that matters.


#127

You know nothing about science if that’s what you think.


#128

I’m still waiting for your scientific qualifications.


#129

Most of the predictions of Armageddon (all that I’m aware of) are by activists, not by scientists.


#130

I don’t need any to point out that you don’t know what you’re talking about, but I also have a degree in physics.


#131

Based on scientists’ projections.


#132

Citation please.


#133

So prove me wrong, “dumbass”.

Well done. Must be qualified as a “climate scientist” then.


#134

I never claimed to be one.

The burden of proof is (still) on you to disprove the established science.


#135

It’s NOT established. Not one verified model. Cite one to prove your science.


#136

Then prove it and publish your paper. You’ll be famous.


#137

The null hypothesis is the base point (that’s where I am - climate changes naturally and observed variations are within the normal range). Your physics degree might have schooled you on the scientific method - it may not universities being such cess pits of Hillary tragics these days - but if you think it is humans causing it, you have to prove it, not me.

BTW, still waiting for the verified model. If your scientists can’t predict the climate (they can’t) then their science is wrong. Not only is it wrong, it’s dangerous. They are saying “trust us” and we have no basis for such trust … well except for you. You trust the unverified models with your life and you nation.

I’m sorry to have to cut this off, but it’s getting tedious with your evasions. I simply hope I’ve lit a flicker of doubt under your stonewalling stance. I’m doubtful.


#138

Only when something is unproven. Man made climate change is an established fact, the null hypothesis has been shown to be categorically false.

Since no scientist has been able to disprove any of the science behind anthropogenic climate change it stands as fact and I highly doubt you’ll be able to do something no PhD researcher has ever been able to do.


#139

You’re the one evading. You haven’t provided the slightest bit of evidence for your claims that the established science is wrong.


#140

True.

False.

I’ll give one example:

It historically has taken between between 5,000 and 20,000 years for atmospheric CO2 concentrations to change by 100 ppm, depending on which period of CO2 change you look at.

CO2 has increased by 100 ppm just in the last 120 years.