"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

cnocbui wrote: »

Was your thesis adviser a 'scientist'?

No. Engineer....




I'd say spit out whatever you're trying to get at lad. One of us is not understanding something and right now it's looking like it's you

cnocbui wrote: »

I don't believe you have a Phd in electrical engineering.

That's okay. I'll struggle on. One day at a time.



I would advise you to look into the difference between scientists and engineers though. They aren't interchangeable and have very different approaches and objectives. Also, be wary of people that overstate their own intelligence. I'm not saying your mate is definitely doing this, but most engineering based postgrad students will have 2+ publications by year three and will regularly be asked to review papers. That's not ivy league stuff. If someone came to me and claimed to have debunked a whole area of science based on them understanding the data better than everybody else, then I'd probably weight their opinion lower than they rate their own....


P.S. IEEE membership is a subscription, not some kind of honorary title. Well they do have those as well, but I'd be surprised if your mate had one of those. He's probably a paying pleb like the rest of us

cnocbui wrote: »

Yes I do believe the person in question has the requisite expertise: 3 degrees including a Phd in electrical engineering, teaches at a major university, member of the IEEE and IEE, peer reviews papers by other scientists as well as authoring their own, has their name on a couple patents, speaks 4 languages and a good bit of two others. They have looked at and studied some of the core papers and concluded the surface temperature data from direct measurements isn't worth the paper it's printed on and has been deliberately manipulated to make the data fit the theory.

Ok, so would your family member be happy if an atmospheric scientist with no background in electrical engineering read any of his published papers and declared that they were not worth the paper they're written on?

Do you think a climatologist is qualified to review cutting edge electrical engineering papers?

You can't apply the scientific method to the study of climate as you can't perform experiments. It's like economics: you can observe and hypothesise but that's it. The last global financial crash and it's aftermath has seen numerous cherished tenets of Economics fly out the window. No real science would be so collectively irresponsible as to be ceaselessly churning out detailed predictions of future climate catastrophe. Global warming has become the largest religion on the planet.

First of all, there are scientific disciplines that don't rely on experiments. It's hard to experiment on Astronomy. But what Astronomers do, is they model the universe and use those models to make predictions, and when their predictions are accurate, that's some of the most accurate scientific data known to man. We can predict eclipses thousands of years in the future. We can know the precise orbits of the known celestial bodies to such a precise degree that we can send spacecraft on intercept courses with comets and (crash)land on their surface years later.

Climatologists model the climate in much the same way astronomers model the solar system. they build models based on known data and historical observations, and then test them by running regression analysis to see if the models can predict the behaviour of the past, then we can confidently say that it is an accurate representation of the known climate system within a known margin of error.

Plus there are loads of sub disciplines that are experimental and go out there gathering data in the real world, making predictions and validating them against known results. Ice core samples are validated against known geological and local historical events for example. The literature is full of experts in these specialist fields debating each others findings and testing and validating their results so that over time, where there are errors in the methodology or results, they get identified and either resolved, or adjusted for in the data analysis.

And the underlying physics behind climate science is being experimented on. Ever since John Tyndall used experimentation to quantify the radiative properties of the various gasses in our atmosphere in 1859, there are countless other experiments to understand how the individual variables in our climate affect radiation absorption and the energy balance. Even CERN got in on the act with the Cloud experiments testing the impacts of cosmic rays on cloud formation.

Climate scientists take the results of all these experiments and use them as data parameters in their models to build a more complete representation of global climate.

cnocbui wrote: »

Yes I do believe the person in question has the requisite expertise: 3 degrees including a Phd in electrical engineering, teaches at a major university, member of the IEEE and IEE, peer reviews papers by other scientists as well as authoring their own, has their name on a couple patents, speaks 4 languages and a good bit of two others. They have looked at and studied some of the core papers and concluded the surface temperature data from direct measurements isn't worth the paper it's printed on and has been deliberately manipulated to make the data fit the theory.

You can't apply the scientific method to the study of climate as you can't perform experiments. It's like economics: you can observe and hypothesise but that's it. The last global financial crash and it's aftermath has seen numerous cherished tenets of Economics fly out the window. No real science would be so collectively irresponsible as to be ceaselessly churning out detailed predictions of future climate catastrophe. Global warming has become the largest religion on the planet.

It's nothing like economics. There are experiments that can be done and thanks to our studies we have million, if not billions of years of climate history we can refer to. There are tens of thousands of climate scientists who are studying this and something like 98% are in agreement with the three core findings of the IEEE. They do use the scientific method. If you're not sure about the scientific method then I recommend you read Karl Popper or even just this link.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/

btw, if you think climate science doesn't use the scientific method then you might as well dismiss astronomy and loads of other sciences because they are heavily observant on observations.

dense wrote: »

Link?

To the exact number of climate scientists in the world, how many of them were surveyed, and by what organisation, what the response rate was, and where was this analysis published?

Thanks.

blah blah blah. Stupid requests for an impossible burden of proof that you can nit pick no matter what the response. Typical of someone trying to obfuscate, not find an answer.

You claim there is no consensus, if that's true, you should be able to easily find dozens of statements from reputable scientific institutions or university departments who currently dispute the consensus

Link to a single one please.

So not a single person has been able to provide a single link to a semi- reputable university of research body that refutes mans effect on climate change? After 50 pages that's looking pretty definitive.

dense wrote: »

There is nothing stupid about simply asking someone who's making up figures to explain where their figures are coming from, or indeed, why they are making them up.

Why would you accept their nonsense?

I asked you for figures to back up your recent claims and I'm still waiting.

It doesn't really matter to me if all academies of science are singing from the one hymn book.

The thing to remember is, like myself, the majority of governments are rejecting their junk science to.


The latest UNIPCC propaganda report has had its 15 minutes of fame and quite correctly has been quickly forgotten about.

Official lip service was paid to it, nothing more, a fact you will acknowledge yourself amidst your cries for global collective action to avert catastrophe, which are falling on deaf ears.

Stupid and fake claims are what you and the likes of George Lee use to promote fake global warming and fake research that attempted to show a scientific consensus.

You lie to people to try to fool them.
You can't deal with simple facts, so you rely on fiction.

We've just had another fake claim made, this time not about a 97%, but a 98% consensus

Made up, unverifiable numbers, the ingredients of "climate science".

University "climate research" funding depends on accepting, creating and perpetuating stupid fake claims in order to sustain their existence.

Do you honestly expect academia to be biting the hand that is feeding it?

They won't and they'll go along with whatever fake research the likes of Cook et al publish because it suits them.



Like you and the rest of the warmists here, they silently endorse fakery because it suits their self serving agenda.

You've been making the most ridiculous claims and faux pas here for the last few months and not one warmist has had the integrity to permit them to admit to it.

Lol.

So you're admitting that there is a consensus amongst professional scientists, but you're just declaring that they're all lying about it to get funding.

You're a joke dense.

Go back to your 'notrickszone' nonsense where they actually do fake data and falsify graphs.

Deleted User wrote: »

+1

There will never be a consensus reached, round we go on the spin cycle.

There is a consensus amongst experts who know what they're talking about, consensus is not the same as unanimous agreement.

In terms of public opinion, depending on which country you're in, it varies depending on the education levels in the country and the standards of discourse in their politics and media. In the EU 92% of adults accept climate change and consider it to be a serious problem (based on ESS survey in 2017)

But this is an internet discussion forum, and sometimes the nuttier opinions get amplified especially amongst those who consume the nuttier media outlets based in the US and the UK who are opposing action on climate change for ideological reasons or because it's in their own financial interest to do so.

dense wrote: »

That NASA says that the average global temperature of 288k hasn't increased since 1972 and hasn't been affected by adding an extra 75ppm of
atmospheric CO2?

2017
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

1972
https://www.google.ie/url?q=https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Faint-young-sun-paradox/Segan-Mullen-1972.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwinhsef0Z3eAhWHCsAKHXUGBWkQFjACegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2vaKm-vbZYqQqBYCVjkU0T

Unless they're going to start saying NASA is now talking pure shîte, I'd say they agree with the above.

You agree with the above too, don't you?


http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/carbon/CO2MAUNA.XLS&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjs7sSGz53eAhWGWsAKHS1FCB8QFjAEegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw3kA3W8N3aKMXC-unazCDaD

You seem to have forgotten that I addressed this point already in this very thread. Repeating the same incorrect points doesn't make them any more valid.

WesternZulu wrote: »

Ah you're just cherry picking now. The fact that there were hot years in the past is not a validation against global climate change.

The global average temp is increasing. There are years that are hotter than more recent times but the trend line is undoubtedly rising:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1918-2018?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1880&lasttrendyear=2018



No one wants to get rid of the greenhouse effect. You have to be trolling.

dense wrote: »

Most definitely, because a fake consensus was arrived at, by arbitrarily giving a minority of climate researchers an opportunity to engage in the "Consensus Project".

The views of the majority of climate scientists referred to in the study were deliberately not sought, which was not surprising given that the majority of climate research analysed FAILED to endorse the AGW theory.

WTF are you going on about now.

Anyway, even if what you said is true, and it isn't. You've just contradicted your previous statement that the scientists and the universities have to endorse AGW or else they won't get any funding

Which is it Dense? You only just said you can't find a single university or scientific institute who supports your view because they're all corrupt and lying about the data, and right now, you're saying that the majority of their published research doesn't actually support the global warming consensus. You can't have it both ways.

WesternZulu wrote: »

You seem to have forgotten that I addressed this point already in this very thread. Repeating the same incorrect points doesn't make them any more valid.

Even worse than that, Dense is lying when dense says that NASA said global average temperature was 288k in 1972. If you look at the link, the only mention of 288k is here

.. this is far less than the observed mean surface temperature, T,, of Earth, 286? to 288 K.

In other words, back in 1972 when this paper was written, the global average temperature was estimated as 287k with a margin of error +-1k
Dense spent another night googling for anything dense could find to support dense's preexisting argument, and again, Dense failed miserably.

One can only imagine how many papers Dense found that measured the earth's temperature at 287k that Dense was forced to ignore before Dense got to the one reference of 288k dense so desperately wanted