Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

KSU

Tell me how wrote: »

For those itching to say, these kids should be in school, what do they know, they should leave it to the adults. Time passes so quickly, these are going to be heading in to college and industry in a very short time and will also be voting in future elections if not contesting them.

And by then more than likely they will have experience with things like taxation, economics and cost of living and imagine their agenda will significantly shift.

kowloon

nthclare wrote: »

Every time I see this thread Pop up, that owl and the pussy cat story comes to mind.

Even the heading is like some story your school teacher would read to you in junior infant's in 1981...

I think of that joke, The Aristocrats.

KyussB

jackboy wrote: »

Can you not see the issue with the term ‘settled scientific consensus’? A consensus implies that all the facts are not known and therefore cannot be settled.

The word denial is not on its own religious, the way it is used in this thread is.

Scientific consensus is a valid term - you just don't understand how science works.

There are lot of things scientists will hotly debate among one another, often highly technical things which put important constraints on how well their theory fits reality - while still having an overall consensus, even when many details are still yet to be settled.

Denialists use the 'wedge' approach, to take this debate over details (details which don't challenge the overall consensus), and portray it as there being no consensus among scientists - when this is not true, it's merely playing politics with science - which is exactly what ALL of the climate change controversy is: Politics, not Science - because the consensus among scientists has already long ago been reached.

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

Scientific consensus is a valid term - you just don't understand how science works.

You didn’t use the term ‘scientific consensus’. You said ‘settled scientific consensus’. If you think I don’t understand science then find a scientist and ask them is ‘settled scientific consensus’ a valid term.

KyussB

You're splitting hairs. A scientific consensus automatically means that the general scientific community in a field has settled around a particular position.

Professor Moriarty

jackboy wrote: »

You didn’t use the term ‘scientific consensus’. You said ‘settled scientific consensus’. If you think I don’t understand science then find a scientist and ask them is ‘settled scientific consensus’ a valid term.

Do you have an alternative 'scientific consensus'? Or 'settled scientific consensus'? Otherwise, it looks like you're playing at semantics because reasons.

jackboy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Do you have an alternative 'scientific consensus'? Or 'settled scientific consensus'? Otherwise, it looks like you're playing at semantics because reasons.

No, ‘settled’ has clearly been used recently on the climate change topic to shut down debate. Climate science is still in it’s infancy, we have much much to learn.

Professor Moriarty

jackboy wrote: »

No, ‘settled’ has clearly been used recently on the climate change topic to shut down debate. Climate science is still in it’s infancy, we have much much to learn.

So what remains to be learnt or proven?

jackboy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So what remains to be learnt or proven?

Seriously. We are not yet capable of developing models to predict future climate accurately. There is so much about the climate we do not know. We cannot yet quantify the impact of sun activity on the climate, or variations in the earths orbit, or the impact of human factors. There is far more that we don’t know than we do know.

Professor Moriarty

jackboy wrote: »

Seriously. We are not yet capable of developing models to predict future climate accurately. There is so much about the climate we do not know. We cannot yet quantify the impact of sun activity on the climate, or variations in the earths orbit, or the impact of human factors. There is far more that we don’t know than we do know.

So what is your opinion of the IPCC models?

KyussB

jackboy wrote: »

Seriously. We are not yet capable of developing models to predict future climate accurately. There is so much about the climate we do not know. We cannot yet quantify the impact of sun activity on the climate, or variations in the earths orbit, or the impact of human factors. There is far more that we don’t know than we do know.

The relevant scientific community know enough to form a consensus on it.

What you're doing is what I described earlier: Focusing on the hotly debated details (don't take that as agreeing with all the exmples you gave, though), which scientists still debate - while ignoring the general consensus among the relveant scientists - which means that even given the details still under debate, the consensus still stands.

You can debate the details all you like. You can't credibly deny the consensus, though. That's in the same realm of religious creationists denying evolution.

jackboy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So what is your opinion of the IPCC models?

There are no accurate models. There cannot be accurate models until we have sufficient data. For example, until we can accurately quantify the impact of sun activity on our climate it will not be possible to develop accurate models. This will take a huge amount of research and time. Same with other factors.

Of course some models based on past conditions may seem accurate in the short term but always diverge in the long term. This is due to missing data and knowledge.

Professor Moriarty

jackboy wrote: »

There are no accurate models. There cannot be accurate models until we have sufficient data. For example, until we can accurately quantify the impact of sun activity on our climate it will not be possible to develop accurate models. This will take a huge amount of research and time. Same with other factors.

Of course some models based on past conditions may seem accurate in the short term but always diverge in the long term. This is due to missing data and knowledge.

So ice sheets are not melting (recently and proven)? Glaciers are not retreating(recently and proven)? Extreme weather events aren't becoming more frequent (recently and proven)? Global temperatures aren't rising (recently and proven)? Atmospheric carbon dioxide isn't rising (recently and proven)? Oceans aren't warming (recently and proven)? Sea levels haven't risen (recently and proven)?

JJayoo

Did the secondary school kids fix the climate earlier? Like it's all sorted now?

jackboy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So ice sheets are not melting (recently and proven)? Glaciers are not retreating(recently and proven)? Extreme weather events aren't becoming more frequent (recently and proven)? Global temperatures aren't rising (recently and proven)? Atmospheric carbon dioxide isn't rising (recently and proven)? Oceans aren't warming (recently and proven)? Sea levels haven't risen (recently and proven)?

All those things may be true. The climate continuously changes and sometimes shifts rapidly. Can we predict the climate decades into the future, no we can’t. Have we accurately quantified the impact of humans on the climate, no we haven’t and cannot until we accurately quantify the impact of natural events on the climate.

Professor Moriarty

jackboy wrote: »

All those things may be true. The climate continuously changes and sometimes shifts rapidly. Can we predict the climate decades into the future, no we can’t. Have we accurately quantified the impact of humans on the climate, no we haven’t and cannot until we accurately quantify the impact of natural events on the climate.

So you're saying that all of these facts point to nothing? Just a coincidence? A happenstance and confluence of unusual events? Nothing to see here?

jackboy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So you're saying that all of these facts point to nothing? Just a coincidence? A happenstance and confluence of unusual events? Nothing to see here?

No, I’m saying it will take a huge amount of research before we have enough data and knowledge to be able to predict the climate decades ahead. Some of the facts that you mentioned are not unusual events. Others are poorly understood. One thing for sure, if you are looking for a steady climate you are on the wrong planet.

Professor Moriarty

jackboy wrote: »

No, I’m saying it will take a huge amount of research before we have enough data and knowledge to be able to predict the climate decades ahead. Some of the facts that you mentioned are not unusual events. Others are poorly understood. One thing for sure, if you are looking for a steady climate you are on the wrong planet.

Which ones are "not unusual"? Why are they "not unusual"?

Tell me how

jackboy wrote: »

No, I’m saying it will take a huge amount of research before we have enough data and knowledge to be able to predict the climate decades ahead. Some of the facts that you mentioned are not unusual events. Others are poorly understood. One thing for sure, if you are looking for a steady climate you are on the wrong planet.

How is it that you think you know more than the 11,000 scientists who recently signed a letter saying action was needed?
Or, do you think you know more than the IPCC who has contributors from 120 countries and says that action is needed?

This BS of saying we need more data before we can make a decision is like suggesting we have to wait for the autopsy before deciding how to treat the patient.

windy shepard henderson

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So you're saying that all of these facts point to nothing? Just a coincidence? A happenstance and confluence of unusual events? Nothing to see here?

The problem is if say you go to the met Éireann Web síte And look up whether events on their records over the last 100 years nothing looks out of the ordinary. Not even now

Some of the commentary on climate change stuff is over exaggerated, there has not been any major shift in weather patterns in the last 100 years here so people are inclined to think its a hoax

It also annoys the likes of my self when you see government using it as a que to up taxes

The fact is we have a very moderate climate and are unlikely to see drastic changes in our lifetime, people are not foolish and know this, this is the reason there is so much opposition

Even the rté documentary last week would have you believe we would be lucky to survive past Christmas with all the changes happening

Tell me how

JJayoo wrote: »

Did the secondary school kids fix the climate earlier? Like it's all sorted now?

They did yeah. All done. You can go back to the XBox.

Tell me how

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

The problem is if say you go to the met Éireann Web síte And look up whether events on their records over the last 100 years nothing looks out of the ordinary. Not even now

Some of the commentary on climate change stuff is over exaggerated, there has not been any major shift in weather patterns in the last 100 years here so people are inclined to think its a hoax

It also annoys the likes of my self when you see government using it as a que to up taxes

The fact is we have a very moderate climate and are unlikely to see drastic changes in our lifetime, people are not foolish and know this, this is the reason there is so much opposition

Even the rté documentary last week would have you believe we would be lucky to survive past Christmas with all the changes happening

You do realise that the Government were lambasted in the 2018 budget for not introducing Carbon taxes. We have been paying fines to Europe as a result of not meeting our carbon emissions targets and they haven't introduced taxes.

This thing of the government are only using it as an excuse is not true, the government has been trying to avoid the issue because they know it will be unpopular.

Professor Moriarty

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

The problem is if say you go to the met Éireann Web síte And look up whether events on their records over the last 100 years nothing looks out of the ordinary. Not even now

Some of the commentary on climate change stuff is over exaggerated, there has not been any major shift in weather patterns in the last 100 years here so people are inclined to think its a hoax

It also annoys the likes of my self when you see government using it as a que to up taxes

The fact is we have a very moderate climate and are unlikely to see drastic changes in our lifetime, people are not foolish and know this, this is the reason there is so much opposition

Even the rté documentary last week would have you believe we would be lucky to survive past Christmas with all the changes happening

Agreed. As to the rest of my points regarding sea levels, oceans warming, extreme weather events etc.?

windy shepard henderson

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Agreed. As to the rest of my points regarding sea levels, oceans warming, extreme weather events etc.?

Ice caps will melt over time, to be fair they have been shrinking for centuries, they are the last remains of the ice age,

Rising sea levels and corrosion are two different things that somehow seem to be connected, greystones area in Ireland and East anglia in England are severely hit with corrosion due to the weak enbankments against the ocean,

You don't need to be a scientist to know if you put ice cubes into a glass of water the level remains the same after the ice melts

To be fair though there are several 1000s of things that really do need to change though Interms of eco related stuff

Constant building on floodplain areas will lead to greater flooding

Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was an example of this with huge deviation caused, a lot or the new Orleans area is Marsh like parts of Florida when big storms hit areas years ago these would have been floodplain areas nowadays they are towns and cities sitting in them

The same is going to happen in the far east especially in low lying countries in the subcontinent where cities and towns are expanding all the time

Taxing Irish cars will not solve these problems, but neither will scare mongering

Professor Moriarty

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

Ice caps will melt over time, to be fair they have been shrinking for centuries, they are the last remains of the ice age,

Rising sea levels and corrosion are two different things that somehow seem to be connected, greystones area in Ireland and East anglia in England are severely hit with corrosion due to the weak enbankments against the ocean,

You don't need to be a scientist to know if you put ice cubes into a glass of water the level remains the same after the ice melts

To be fair though there are several 1000s of things that really do need to change though Interms of eco related stuff

Constant building on floodplain areas will lead to greater flooding

Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was an example of this with huge deviation caused, a lot or the new Orleans area is Marsh like parts of Florida when big storms hit areas years ago these would have been floodplain areas nowadays they are towns and cities sitting in them

The same is going to happen in the far east especially in low lying countries in the subcontinent where cities and towns are expanding all the time

Taxing Irish cars will not solve these problems, but neither will scare mongering

And your conclusion?

windy shepard henderson

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

And your conclusion?

I have said the same thing from day 1, scerten eco systems are being destroyed yes, and to me that's when the focus should be on now

Shipping vessels using the ocean as their landfill dump is another, rainforest demolition is Peter Mandelsons vision of globalisation gone wrong

My conclusion is you won't fix these issues by taxation on Irish people or scare mongering

windy shepard henderson

Tell me how wrote: »

You do realise that the Government were lambasted in the 2018 budget for not introducing Carbon taxes. We have been paying fines to Europe as a result of not meeting our carbon emissions targets and they haven't introduced taxes.

This thing of the government are only using it as an excuse is not true, the government has been trying to avoid the issue because they know it will be unpopular.

Why wouldn't it be unpopular, this idea of per cap emissions is rubbish, you can't base things on this basis

Because of our low population we would be seen as one of the biggest culprits, whilst somewhere like Germany get away with whatever they like

Tell me how

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

Why wouldn't it be unpopular, this idea of per cap emissions is rubbish, you can't base things on this basis

Because of our low population we would be seen as one of the biggest culprits, whilst somewhere like Germany get away with whatever they like

The data disagrees with you. It makes no sense to suggest that as we have a smaller population we appear of one of the bigger contributors.

It might be worth your while spending some time on this link.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Particularly where it shows the total historical output from each country.

We are at 0.11% for this value, truly very small where as germany is over 2%.

There is transparency in the data, not hyperbole.

windy shepard henderson

Tell me how wrote: »

The data disagrees with you. It makes no sense to suggest that as we have a smaller population we appear of one of the bigger contributors.

It might be worth your while spending some time on this link.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Particularly where it shows the total historical output from each country.

We are at 0.11% for this value, truly very small where as germany is over 2%.

There is transparency in the data, not hyperbole.

The data is bull****

The pro ráta system is divided by there population of over 60 million 12 times greater then ours

They have several coal burning power stations for example and still fall under the reader

We have 1 and were the worst in Europe, you need to look at more than just data

Tell me how

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

The data is bull****

The pro ráta system is divided by there population of over 60 million 12 times greater then ours

They have several coal burning power stations for example and still fall under the reader

We have 1 and were the worst in Europe, you need to look at more than just data

How is dividing the total output, by the total population false when it is done in for every country?

Does this not give a figure of, this is the CO2 which this country needs to function as it currently operates and so is comparable from one country to the next.
The total power stations would have been factored in to their total output, it's not like they were ignored.

What do you want to look at, if not data?