essex man
Member
- Location
- colchester
Science on anything is never "settled" .
Science produced by "scientists" who are paid to come up with one outcome is definitely not settled.
Climate myths
- Thread starter willyorkshire
- Start date
Science produced by "scientists" who are paid to come up with one outcome is definitely not settled.
I quoted what you said and made a general statement.
I don’t see how I twisted your quote I quoted it?
Then I made a statement and said, a lot think this way, not my problem so why bother, making changes.
Could I have added more context to what I said, but I didn’t say, a lot think like you, did I? So how was it twisted?
You said, long dead before they reach any conclusions, that normally means that the effect of climate change if any will be so small that they will still be debated and no conclusive effect will be seen, and the time frame, you picked was that would be true outside the life time of any reader of your post, so 50 years maybe greater.
so if that doesn’t fit why worry it’s out side our life times, I don’t know what is, the only conclusion you didn’t say was if you would be willing to make changes, regardless of if conclusive evidence was found or not. So if you felt i specifically included you in that sorry but the rest of your statement fits a lot of other peoples excuses for not doing anything.
If you want to let people know you’re working to solve climate change now even without a conclusion as a beacon for what we all should do that would be great.
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
Prove me wrong
Settled is not a scientific word, the effect of co2 in our climate and in which direction temps are going is settled, and that is what that word is used for the rest is up for debate.
so settled means in this context, a car is driving down a road we can see it is, but we cannot see it’s speed, make or model, and many other unseen factors because there is no doubt the car is driving down the road that part of the science is settled.
I would say lots of stuff is settled like our orbit of the sun, the moon orbits the earth, etc etc some levels of facts are known, but we never know everything. The earth core may shift so it shifts the moons orbit etc, but it’s settled the moon orbits the earth.
So yes sc some levels of general facts can be settled, but in science, if new facts break what was thought to be settled, they will be changed. That’s why science can never be 100% on a topic as complex as our planets climate, we can be settled on some aspects but not others as it’s just too complex.
Last edited:
You could both do with doing some reading on this thread about where those graphs came from, how accurate they are and what conclusions can be drawn from them if you are going to use them for your argument.
Just a taster: "It seems the graph is based on falsification and/or misinterpretation of the sources. Intentional or accidental. And the graph does not support the claim that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature over geological times"
Bogweevil
Member
Meanwhile back in the real world today:
A joint UK and Ireland investment of more than £60m is set to be announced to create two new science research centres to look at climate change.
The announcement is expected to made at the British and Irish Intergovernmental Conference (BIIGC) in Dublin later.
The centres will focus on areas such as biodiversity and food sustainability.
A joint UK and Ireland investment of more than £60m is set to be announced to create two new science research centres to look at climate change.
The announcement is expected to made at the British and Irish Intergovernmental Conference (BIIGC) in Dublin later.
The centres will focus on areas such as biodiversity and food sustainability.
lol so your 100% correct about everything, a god walks the earth, we must all bow down. lol.
Only an idiot would say that.
Great, so why is the world warming then, simple as really, remove the reason science thinks is doing it, your left with what to explain what’s happening?
Unless you also don’t think it’s warming?
I'm not sure I fully understand your point, but mine was this: those graphs are so far from accurate about CO2 concentrations that they can't be used to say, 'but back then CO2 was low and temperature was high'. Even if that was the case then it turns out lots of other things can cause temperature increases, like volcanoes, tectonic activity, changes in solar intensity etc, so temperatures could be higher even though CO2 was lower.
The difference now is, the warming we see *can not be explained by any of those things*. Over the last century the driving factor in temperature increases has been anthropogenic climate change aka more CO2
- Location
- Somerset
wanton dwarf
Member
Well here's the 2015 scotese
Both graphs state a different date 2002 & Ruddiman 2001
Regardless no link to CO2 & temperature
wanton dwarf
Member
What a load of utter BS
Volcanoes don't erupt for 600 million years, sulphur lowers temperatures.
Cities & Towns are 3 degrees hotter than the surrounding countryside
Agricultural drainage & cropping, no green vegetation during high summer
Water Tables have been lowered on continental scales by over 1km in the middle east & well over 250metres in North America
There is no science supporting CO2 temperature rise - that's why Climate Alarmists use graphs - association by default & claiming there is no other explanation
There are no worldwide records from 1850 to 1979, even today there are no temperature data recordings in vast areas of continents. Worldwide maps from 1850 to 1950 is a complete joke, the data simply doesn't exist & the reason why graphs & maps are used is to hide the fact the majority of data by far is in the USA followed by Europe - the rest is made up.
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
Only an idiot of the first order would respond as you have to an invitation to prove me wrong. You don’t even know what that view is for you to prove one way or another for goodness’ sake!
I’ve been waiting for 25 years for alarmist predictions to prove correct, yet here we still are, here all the ice remains, the snow still falls, it still freezes in Winter in the UK and no low lying islands have been submerged. No trends in more or more severe storms, rainfall or drought. The weather and climate is as variable as it has always been and the planet actually greener.Only an idiot of the first order would respond as you have to an invitation to prove me wrong. You don’t even know what that view is for you to prove one way or another for goodness’ sake!
We are all fools to the money and politics of this issue, if you chose to think everything is fine, there is no hope in trying to convince you, because it’s visible and measurable, so trying to make you see something you don’t want to see, would make me a fool if I tried.
if you want to work out if climate change is real or not, it requires you to trust the data source, name one source that has data you would believe?
Trusting the source is key, if you don’t trust scientific data or government data or your own eyes looking at the world around you changing, then what would be the point of me trying?
essex man
Member
- Location
- colchester
No science is ever settled.
Pretty clear in my mind and many eminent scientists minds that man made co2 is is not driving warming.
You are contradicting yourself here, you agree science, by its definition, is not ever "settled" , yet want to have your opinion/theory as settled!
All climate scientists have to say co2 is driving warming otherwise they have no job...do you think that is a good way to "run" science?
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
It is indeed visible and measurable and the climate has not changed since around 2000. Sea level is rising at about the same rate as it has done for centuries, sometimes a bit faster than average and sometimes a bit slower. There are no more storms and they are no more severe than ever.
I’ve been waiting decades for the doom-laden scenarios to show in practice on the ground and there’s a great big nothing. None of it has come true despite decades of climate doom predictions, multiple ‘tipping points’ and so on and so forth. Coral that was killed yet is as verdant and active as ever. Sea ice remains in the North West Passage. Australia has as unpredictable swings between floods and droughts the same as ever with more cropped land than traditional. Crop yields continue to increase slowly but surely despite lower chemical fertiliser and chemical applications than in the 20thCentury.
The mega-rich are still buying and insurance companies insuring very low land properties globally and planning departments keep giving planning permission to mass developments on flood plains.
What have you got? A range of gloomy to dire predictions that have all been proven so far and will continue to be way removed from reality. You have a rabid faith in these dire predictions of doom that never come true, very strikingly like a devout religiously faithful that so often have predicted the end of times and that only they have the answers and only they will be saved from the coming apocalypse.
You're right. There is no link between CO2 and temperature in these graphs.
Unfortunately that is because the graph is only really designed to show hot and cold periods and only uses qualitative analysis it is not accurate enough to make those connections.
Fortunately this is something scientists are also aware of (phew) and so this paper features a plot which corrects for the steady increase in solar activity and calculates the temperatures far more accurately and oh would you look at that it seem like CO2 is pretty well correlated to temperature change.
https://www.searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/documents/2009/110115royer/ndx_royer.pdf.html
In case you were wondering, Scotese no longer uses your graph as it was being used incorrectly to suggest your point, a conclusion which it does not support.
I'm glad you agree with me on my previous point that there are other factors apart from CO2 which can influence temperature change, and so we should not expect a completely perfect correlation between CO2 and temperature.
I also hope you remember that I only brought up my graph in response to your own graph with bad data to prove your own point.
I also think it's a bit ironic that you think the data you showed from literal billions of years ago is accurate enough for us to make a direct conclusion but the data from 1850 to 1950 is a complete joke
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
Talking of The Apocalypse, here is one of the best interviews on climate change that I’ve ever seen. A ‘must see’ or ‘must listen to’ discussion.
its warming because that is what it does ,warms then cools ,over 10s of 1000s of years