[Misc] Global Warming

[RandyWanger]

Are you a real scientist?

Just a PhD in computer science who runs a lot of models on stuff like this. Data can be manipulated to say what you want, if you have a government keen on increasing taxation via 'carbon credits' the data set can be manipulated in a way to back up that narrative. The easiest way is to use the 'since records began' claim obviously as that discards a lot of history. But if you go back and study data, rapid warming and cooling have happened before also. Believe who you want and comply if you wish, I'll keep on trucking in my landrover, long hauling for my holidays, and eat what I choose.

 

[AstroSloth]

Just a PhD in computer science who runs a lot of models on stuff like this. Data can be manipulated to say what you want, if you have a government keen on increasing taxation via 'carbon credits' the data set can be manipulated in a way to back up that narrative. The easiest way is to use the 'since records began' claim obviously as that discards a lot of history. But if you go back and study data, rapid warming and cooling have happened before also. Believe who you want and comply if you wish, I'll keep on trucking in my landrover, long hauling for my holidays, and eat what I choose.

Ah so you're not a researcher on the subject? Who could have seen that coming with your ignorant statements and lack of understanding.

 

[nicko31]

Just a PhD in computer science who runs a lot of models on stuff like this. Data can be manipulated to say what you want, if you have a government keen on increasing taxation via 'carbon credits' the data set can be manipulated in a way to back up that narrative. The easiest way is to use the 'since records began' claim obviously as that discards a lot of history. But if you go back and study data, rapid warming and cooling have happened before also. Believe who you want and comply if you wish, I'll keep on trucking in my landrover, long hauling for my holidays, and eat what I choose

Should we listen to you and ignore 99.5% of scientists who all essentially come to the same conclusion?

If we take action and its all in vein what's the worse outcome?

But if we do nothing what's the worse outcome for future generations?

Watch out you could be hit be 7 bin recycling soon....

 

[Zeberdi]

Just a PhD in computer science who runs a lot of models on stuff like this. Data can be manipulated to say what you want, if you have a government keen on increasing taxation via 'carbon credits' the data set can be manipulated in a way to back up that narrative. The easiest way is to use the 'since records began' claim obviously as that discards a lot of history. But if you go back and study data, rapid warming and cooling have happened before also. Believe who you want and comply if you wish, I'll keep on trucking in my landrover, long hauling for my holidays, and eat what I choose.

It’s a ridiculous postulation to suggest that the science on the anthropogenic causes of rapid climate change are no more than a conspiracy by governments to raise taxes. Tell that to the people of the Marshall Islands and other low lying Pacific islands who are already bearing the brunt of rising sea levels and extreme weather events. In 2023 alone, there were 25 climate events that reached or exceeded 1 billion dollars. It makes no economic sense your suggestion - it is simply not economically viable to do nothing.

Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Summary of U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate related disaster research, methodology, and data sources

www.ncei.noaa.gov

Notwithstanding the science, the glaring weakness of your position is that regardless of worsening climatic events, in dismissing the impacts of CC as natural and unavoidable, you advocate we do nothing to mitigate the risks of it’s devastating effects - that in itself is an intolerable attitude not just to the environment we live in but to our fellow human beings whose lives and livelihoods are already at high risk with severe weather events.

Last year’s El Nino will likely bring even more extreme and unpredictable weather events in the southern hemisphere this winter as well as potentially high record temperatures for us next summer.

El Nino, intensifying climate change to make 2024 another record hot year, scientists warn

World is in completely uncharted territory and 2023 showed that climate change is happening now, Carlo Buontempo, director of Copernicus Climate Change Service, tells Anadolu - Anadolu Ajansı

www.aa.com.tr

You don’t have to be a scientist to forecast changing weather patterns, you just have to look out the window.

 

[A1X]

The real ones know

 

[pb21]

Data can be manipulated to say what you want, if you have a government keen on increasing taxation via 'carbon credits' the data set can be manipulated in a way to back up that narrative.

So global warming is a global conspiracy of various Governments to increase taxation?

 

[NorthstandRacoon]

Just a PhD in computer science who runs a lot of models on stuff like this. Data can be manipulated to say what you want, if you have a government keen on increasing taxation via 'carbon credits' the data set can be manipulated in a way to back up that narrative. The easiest way is to use the 'since records began' claim obviously as that discards a lot of history. But if you go back and study data, rapid warming and cooling have happened before also. Believe who you want and comply if you wish, I'll keep on trucking in my landrover, long hauling for my holidays, and eat what I choose.

Me too, I work in aviation, we are currently receiving investment to make pigs fly.

 

[NorthstandRacoon]

So global warming is a global conspiracy of various Governments to increase taxation?

Don’t bother. The evidence is right in front of our very eyes ffs. It’s infuriating dealing with people who just debunk the truth.

 

[beorhthelm]

...

Last year’s El Nino will likely bring even more extreme and unpredictable weather events in the southern hemisphere this winter as well as potentially high record temperatures for us next summer.

El Nino, intensifying climate change to make 2024 another record hot year, scientists warn

World is in completely uncharted territory and 2023 showed that climate change is happening now, Carlo Buontempo, director of Copernicus Climate Change Service, tells Anadolu - Anadolu Ajansı

www.aa.com.tr

You don’t have to be a scientist to forecast changing weather patterns, you just have to look out the window.

now add Hunga Tonga eruption in the mix

 

[Cordwainer]

Just a PhD in computer science who runs a lot of models on stuff like this. Data can be manipulated to say what you want, if you have a government keen on increasing taxation via 'carbon credits' the data set can be manipulated in a way to back up that narrative. The easiest way is to use the 'since records began' claim obviously as that discards a lot of history. But if you go back and study data, rapid warming and cooling have happened before also. Believe who you want and comply if you wish, I'll keep on trucking in my landrover, long hauling for my holidays, and eat what I choose.

Hmmm..think I’ve spotted an issue in the models you’re running;

10 Print “Climate Change is Fake”

20 Go to 10

Run

 

[Zeberdi]

Yes but didn't you know @RandyWanger watched a YouTube video that didn't cite research or sources which told him it's fake so you're wrong.

I attributed the absurdity of his remarks down to an unusual excess of methane.

 

[pb21]

Don’t bother. The evidence is right in front of our very eyes ffs. It’s infuriating dealing with people who just debunk the truth.

I know what you mean, but I do find it interesting why some people choose to believe one set of scientists over another, particularly when one set is a significant minority.

I like to keep my mind open, it could all be completely wrong. But, so far all the climate change deniers I have come across do have some sort of political reason/basis for 'siding' with the global conspiracy angle, rather than choosing to accept the consensus.

 

[Baldseagull]

Just a PhD in computer science who runs a lot of models on stuff like this. Data can be manipulated to say what you want, if you have a government keen on increasing taxation via 'carbon credits' the data set can be manipulated in a way to back up that narrative. The easiest way is to use the 'since records began' claim obviously as that discards a lot of history. But if you go back and study data, rapid warming and cooling have happened before also. Believe who you want and comply if you wish, I'll keep on trucking in my landrover, long hauling for my holidays, and eat what I choose.

I'm interested to see the evidence you have seen for rapid climate change that doesn't have either a suspected or known cataclysmic event preceding it, like a supervolcano eruption, or massive asteroid impact. Any links would be useful, thanks.

 

[portlock seagull]

Are people still not getting it on this thread? Is man made climate change still up for debate, or is everyone now united in the opinion we’re causing it?

 

[Baldseagull]

Are people still not getting it on this thread? Is man made climate change still up for debate, or is everyone now united in the opinion we’re causing it?

People are getting it, one person is cleverer than the rest though, and has "done his own research". I am keen to learn, and hope this genius will furnish me with the evidence that we are all wasting our time.

 

[Dr Q]

Just a PhD in computer science who runs a lot of models on stuff like this. Data can be manipulated to say what you want, if you have a government keen on increasing taxation via 'carbon credits' the data set can be manipulated in a way to back up that narrative. The easiest way is to use the 'since records began' claim obviously as that discards a lot of history. But if you go back and study data, rapid warming and cooling have happened before also. Believe who you want and comply if you wish, I'll keep on trucking in my landrover, long hauling for my holidays, and eat what I choose.

The sign of a 'Real Scientist' is one who has an open mind to all possibilities and looks at the evidence from the various models and experts. Sadly, the way you bound terms around like Forams and Milankovitch Cycles around (Geology 101 terms, easily extractable from any climate change denier site), your 'f**k you all' attitude and the fact that you claim everyone who disagrees with you as idiots, comes across less as a scientist, more as the arrogant IT jerk in The Office.

Just for context, I too have a PhD, in Geology, and 30 yrs in the dirty old Oil Industry. Now, being in my early 50's and working in the fossil fuels business would in theory put me in the classic Climate Change denier venn diagram centre, but strangely no. The company I work for, and specifically the large technical team I manage does a lot of work with palaeo-climate models back to 300 mya, modelled using our input and proxy data (including your forams) by academic groups in the UK, USA and Scandanavia. I'm not at the coal face of climate modelling, but certainly in the mine. You are correct in saying the earth was much hotter and colder at times compared to today, about the only thing you've said that makes sense. Anyway, the main tasks of these various academic groups is actually forward climate modelling (they just apply them with modifications to deep time for us), and all of them have simulations, which we have seen, showing that man-made climate change is very, very real. The post-industrial rate of temperature rise is much higher than anything that could even be seen wothin the resolution of geological evidence (100s of years compared to at the very least 10s of 1000s of years), so your rapid heating/cooling arguement for a start is moot.

Is driving your land rover and taking long hauls flights going to change anything in the long or short term, no, so carry on (although I'm surprised your not worried about falling off the edge of the flat earth!), but dismissing peer reviewed science and calling those at least attempting to make some sort of change as idiots doesn't really win you the arguement does it?

 

[American Seagle]

Just a PhD in computer science who runs a lot of models on stuff like this. Data can be manipulated to say what you want, if you have a government keen on increasing taxation via 'carbon credits' the data set can be manipulated in a way to back up that narrative. The easiest way is to use the 'since records began' claim obviously as that discards a lot of history. But if you go back and study data, rapid warming and cooling have happened before also. Believe who you want and comply if you wish, I'll keep on trucking in my landrover, long hauling for my holidays, and eat what I choose.

I take it the PhD is not going well then
You can't just manipulate data to say whatever you want.

 

[beorhthelm]

I take it the PhD is not going well then
You can't just manipulate data to say whatever you want.

you jolly well can. it's the art of selecting what you want to include in your data, discard things you know will disagree, alter the precision of data, overweight those that will correlate with intended results. get data suppressed or considered inconsistent and unsuitable. then when you run models, throw in some bias or random data and select the outcomes that you like. see early covid predictions, or Daily Express weather forecasts for a trivial example.

of course none of this could possibly have happened with climate science, they never had any credible accusations in this area. after all 99.5% of scientist agree.

even though 99.5% of sciencists wouldnt agree on anything else.

 

[American Seagle]

you jolly well can. it's the art of selecting what you want to include in your data, discard things you know will disagree, alter the precision of data, overweight those that will correlate with intended results. get data suppressed or considered inconsistent and unsuitable. then when you run models, throw in some bias or random data and select the outcomes that you like. see early covid predictions, or Daily Express weather forecasts for a trivial example.

of course none of this could possibly have happened with climate science, they never had any credible accusations in this area. after all 99.5% of scientist agree.

even though 99.5% of sciencists wouldnt agree on anything else.

You can't do that as it is massive academic and moral misconduct. If you exclude data you need an absolutely solid reason for doing so and state it clearly wherever the data is presented.
As for the other stuff, well, that is is just misconduct on a higher level.

 

[zefarelly]

Don’t bother. The evidence is right in front of our very eyes ffs. It’s infuriating being governed by people who just debunk the truth.

Yes, yes it is.