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.
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?
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.
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)?
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.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » So what is your opinion of the IPCC models?
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.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » So what remains to be learnt or proven?
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.
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.
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.
KyussB wrote: » Scientific consensus is a valid term - you just don't understand how science works.
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.
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...
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.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » You just imply it.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I never mentioned censorship.
RECOMMENDATIONSFrom your corner store to your super market, we call on the house to incentivise and obligate the installation of glass doors on open refrigerators For Ireland to ban the importation of fracked gas and invest solely in renewables. Implementing measures that will allow that Irish goods be both eco- sustainable and affordable in todays' Irish Market. Implement a tiered Tax on Emissions from large companies including those under capital ETS. This tax must be increased every year while threshold decreases, shifting the burden from individuals to corporations. Investment in industrial hemp processing facilities to provide a viable, sustainable and alternative land use for farmers as well as employment in rural Ireland. A labelling and pricing system showing the climate impact of food products based on criteria such as impact of packaging and distance travelled. Ireland to outlaw acts of ecocide – being the widespread and systematic loss of ecosystems, including climate and cultural damage. Protect existing forests and make compulsory that at least 10% of all land owned for agricultural uses is dedicated to forestry. A targeted nationwide Information campaign to educate the population about the climate crisis regarding the causes, the effects and the solutions. Mandatory "Sustainability" education from primary level to the workplace including a new compulsory Junior Cycle & optional Leaving Certificate subject.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Censorship is the way to go for people who don't subscribe to the hysterical doctrine.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Greta must be in line for a Nobel Prize at this stage surely?
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Denying climate change is good sign that someone can be ignored.
KyussB wrote: » There is nothing religious about using the word denial: What other word would you propose people use, when people pour doubt on a well established and settled scientific consensus?
Deleted User wrote: » There is no doubt humans are impacting, but these trends have been ongoing for 1000s of years. We are between ice ages, when the planet naturally warms.
Deleted User wrote: » Cars are NOT a major part of the problem. The entire resolution could be done if we limited couples to one child for the next 50 years. Too many people is the only issue
