Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Climate change

Climate science is important and we have quite some evidence that we should reduce raw material & energy use, avoid our negative effects on the ecosystems.
I see numerous examples of profit knowingly accepting direct and difficult to revert damage.
I therefore find the discussion and protests useful to reconsider what we do.

At the same time, I observe a few concerning trends. One is the consensus issue. Science progress and consensus are not compatible, because it is always someone who comes up against the consensus that establishes the next step of scientific progress.
Past examples of scientific consensus: earth is the center of the universe, earth is flat, witches bring evil on people and should be burnt. And before you discard these as gross and/or hilarious outliers – there are plenty of less illustrative examples in all branches of science.
And each generation of scientists usually looks back in amazement how this and that theory could survive that long.
Because that is what science is, a set of theoreties that is status quo until someone finds a problem vs reality or a theory that better explains the observations of reality.

The only facts are observations, and they point so far to a very limited number of current problems – but a high risk of problems in the future.

...
EDM_, Germany

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Well, any scientist who disagrees is very fast looking for a new job these days.

Do you have a source for that or is that what you believe would be happening?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

Do you have a source for that or is that what you believe would be happening?

I’ve seen it happening but as it has not happened to me personally (yet), I prefer not to name organisations or people as it can get me in trouble too. So you have to take my word for it. People who voice doubts only are very fast being bullied or threatened, so those who speak out… draw your own conclusions.

LSZH, Switzerland

Solar farms only work on inflated subsidies in this country, ground installation is significantly cheaper than on rooves. Also easier to clean.

I’ve heard a number of people comment that Climate change now is taking on the properties of a religion / cult the way it is being put out. Acting as if it is absolutely clear that it is all man made and man influenced and you’re a denier and pariah if you question any of their assertions. I think I tend to agree.

Putting out a child shield to front this who makes rabid claims of everything being known when clearly she can’t understand the science behind I don’t think is particularly good. Any critisim of this though is treated as just attacking a child.

Taking a multi million pound carbon sailing yacht to cross the atlantic. (which requires a crew). Then having to fly out a crew to sail it back shows they are more about appearance than actions.

There are a number of people claiming the world will end in 12 years due to climate change. I am not convinced.

Off_Field wrote:

I’ve heard a number of people comment that Climate change now is taking on the properties of a religion / cult the way it is being put out. Acting as if it is absolutely clear that it is all man made and man influenced and you’re a denier and pariah if you question any of their assertions. I think I tend to agree.

It is as clear at is can possibly be that it is man-made. Whether you are a “denier and pariah” depends on your arguments. I’ve met several people who seriously claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas at all, i.e. that CO2 concentrations has no effect on climate. Obviously, there is no debating with such people.

Also, it was for at least a decade very popular to show temperature series beginning with 1998 to show that global temperatures are actually decreasing. Although the long-term trend is clear, 1998 was an unusually warm year so starting with that year did indeed show a temperature decrease. (This practise ended when temperatures rose above the 1998 level.) To me basing arguments on outliers is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.

Putting out a child shield to front this who makes rabid claims of everything being known when

There is nothing to suggest that this hasn’t been Greta’s own idea from the beginning. (As she is Swedish, she gained attention here long before she did internationally.) Obviously she has gained support over time.

clearly she can’t understand the science behind I don’t think is particularly good.

The fact is that the vast majority of people in the world don’t understand the science. That includes me (who is a university professor, although in a different subject), most likely you, and virtually all politicians. I do what Greta says: Listen to the scientists. (And, yes, you can always find differing opinions among scientists as well, but the vast majority of climate scientists, agree that AGW is a fact. It never fails to astonish me that people believe that a single scientific study that claims X is false trumps 10 scientific studies that show X is true. And this is in no way limited to climate science.)

Any critisim of this though is treated as just attacking a child.

Criticism about the matter at hand — the climate change issue — is of course ok. But I have seen very little of that. Most “criticism” of her is about her as a person, about people who are claimed to be “using” her, claims that she has an “entourage” travelling by business jet, incorrect claims about her schooling, even death threats.

Taking a multi million pound carbon sailing yacht to cross the atlantic. (which requires a crew). Then having to fly out a crew to sail it back shows they are more about appearance than actions.

She did not. The yacht was going to cross the Atlantic anyway. She learned about it and hitched a ride.

There are a number of people claiming the world will end in 12 years due to climate change. I am not convinced.

I have never, ever, heard anyone claim that.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

I have never, ever, heard anyone claim that.

Let me help you with that. ""I think that the part of it that is generational is that millennials, and Gen-Z, and all these folks that come after us, are looking up and we’re like, the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, and your biggest issue is, your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it?"" – Representative Alexandra Ocasio Cortez Jan19 2019

Airborne_Again wrote:

It is as clear at is can possibly be that it is man-made.

I would question this too, I think that there is good and reasonable argument at its rate is being affected by our actions. However the climate has always changed over time. The cycle of Ice ages to warm periods I would think could easily be described as climate change. Yet I don’t think anyone sensible would claim that was man made.

Airborne_Again wrote:

To me basing arguments on outliers is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.

Good point, and that we are coming out of a little ice age should not be ignored either

Airborne_Again wrote:

There is nothing to suggest that this hasn’t been Greta’s own idea from the beginning.

As daughter of a pop star or contestant I’m sure she would be happy with courting media attention. I understand she has also been open about her mental illnesses and I’m not sure how much being thrust into the public spotlight really will help this. I understand there have been a few noted cases of her being asked questions, not having any response and looking for someone else to answer. Did she also not ban reporters from coming into one of her events?

Airborne_Again wrote:

The fact is that the vast majority of people in the world don’t understand the science.

I would say that no one does. That’s why it’s based on guesswork and modelling.
My point is that I don’t think we have really enough understanding and data for long enough to make categoric statements. I have a bit of a background in theoretical physics and astrophysics and many friends who continued on to be full time academics. I am very aware how important securing funding to them was, I know of a few who were not able to get positions because there simply was no funding for the fields they had got their phd’s in (particularly theoretical physics). I am also aware of how readily available funding was for climate science / change fields (this is going back about 15 years though). Politicians, media etc are not really interested in the middle of the road scientific opinion, they usually want some extreme case. These people get notoriety and funding, there is encouragement for it.

Whipping up a frenzy from celebrities or politicians I see as far far less valuable than considered peer reviewed input. Although that’s not really what we see.

Airborne_Again wrote:

Listen to the scientists. (And, yes, you can always find differing opinions among scientists as well, but the vast majority of climate scientists, agree that AGW is a fact. It never fails to astonish me that people believe that a single scientific study that claims X is false trumps 10 scientific studies that show X is true. And this is in no way limited to climate science.)

Science is not decided upon by committy, it is not necessarily the case that the majority is unfailable just because more people claim something is true than others.

Galileo could teach you a lesson about that for starters. He and some others were totally alone claiming a truth we all know is true today, yet he was almost executed over it. Today, the same thing happenes in most science battles where the majority tries to shout down dissidents, but it has reached religious proportions in climate science.

And that is the danger: There are no more moderates in this: People are pushed into either fanatical climate change proponents or equally fanatical “deniers” for the lack of a better word. Where are those who wish to examine the facts reasonably and act like real scientists, not infantile scaremongerers to up their budgets or subsidies?

As for modelling, I am skeptic to the max as one guy who has to use even short range models on a daily basis. If you look at the discussions we have had here just about inflight winds a few days from today, are you really telling me we should fall hook line and sinker for clima models which have been purpose programmed for the last 2-3 decades to predict the next 50 or even 100 years? Give me a break. What those models show are variants, only that nowadays rather then using ensemble models like we do in meteorology, climatology has often discarded those who ddo not fit into the political correctnes of “we are all going to die”.

And what makes me really angry is that this panic tactics are contraproductive. If the engergy wasted in fighting each other would be put into researching ways to change things for the better WITHOUT wiping out the economy and preferrably half the population economically if not physically, we might actually achive something. Like this all we will achieve is a 3rd world war when the poor and middle classes will rise up against the challenge of having their very moderate comforts and incomes decimated or destroyed by socialists who finally have found the vehicle potent enough to make it happen.

LSZH, Switzerland

Off_Field wrote:

Let me help you with that. ""I think that the part of it that is generational is that millennials, and Gen-Z, and all these folks that come after us, are looking up and we’re like, the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, and your biggest issue is, your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it?"" – Representative Alexandra Ocasio Cortez Jan19 2019

I don’t understand that as an actual claim that the world will end in 12 years. More like a figure of speech — “…we’re like…”

As daughter of a pop star or contestant I’m sure she would be happy with courting media attention.

Her mother is not a “pop star or contestant”. She is an opera singer and not one of the most well known ones. She did participate in the Eurovision Song Contest once, 10 years ago.

I understand she has also been open about her mental illnesses and I’m not sure how much being thrust into the public spotlight really will help this. I understand there have been a few noted cases of her being asked questions, not having any response and looking for someone else to answer. Did she also not ban reporters from coming into one of her events?

She doesn’t have any mental illnesses. She has Aspergers syndrome, which is not an “illness”.

But what you write just proves my point. Your “criticism” of Greta Thunberg is nothing more than attempts to undermine her credibility by attacks or her person.

For the record, I don’t agree with every point she makes. Obviously my view on aviation is more nuanced. But I do think that she has made a tremendous job of raising awareness of the climate change issues.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

She may have done a good job of raising awareness of the “climate change issue”, but the world is full of people who are also doing that and it is hardly something we need even more of.

What we are short of in the west are politicians who are willing to deeply engage with the science and economics of this issue and make reasoned decisions. So far all that most of them have done is panicked surrender to the alarmist line – with promises of complete decarbonisation by 2025, 2030 or 2050. But with no thought to 1) whether the science actually justifies this and b) what the economic consequences will be.

As I have written elsewhere the empirical data so far is completely clear – yes the globe is warming (but at much lower rates than the models predict), elevated CO2 levels are probably contributing to this but are not the only factor driving the change, and MOST IMPORTANTLY so far increases in global temperature and CO2 levels have been net positives for the globe. How? By increasing crop yields and expanding forest cover and reducing the effects of drought in places like the Sahel, thus increasing prosperity, reducing food prices and reducing deaths from extreme cold. On the other hand there is virtually no empirical evidence for increases in “extreme” weather events or increased deaths from such events.

The economic consequences to the west of blindly pursuing radical decarbonisation will be catastrophic to living standards.

Much as do I not like the guy, President Trump is the only major leader who has been willing to stand up to the extremists and say “your case is not proven, I am not willing to empoverish my people”. I wish there were more who were prepared to take this stand.

Upper Harford, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top