Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
20-12-2019, 14:59   #31
Coles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneiric 3 View Post
Is it? What about Greta Thunberg's credentials also? Surely there must be more to her than those cute pigtails she commonly sports?
She doesn't need credentials to ask people to listen to the scientists.
Coles is offline  
(4) thanks from:
Advertisement
20-12-2019, 15:01   #32
Oneiric 3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coles View Post
Climate change denier realises he was wrong
M.T has never been a 'climate denier', but he is what I call 'old school', in that he questions everything and does not take everything told to him at face-value without first researching the facts (or lack of them) himself.
Oneiric 3 is offline  
20-12-2019, 15:07   #33
Oneiric 3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coles View Post
She doesn't need credentials to ask people to listen to the scientists.
She is nothing but a media created figure. Ample media coverage and privileged to speak to the world leaders on a regular basis. Also, why do 'scientists' need a young, uneducated and obviously terrified teenage girl to speak for them? Are their own pigtails not appealing enough for the cameras?
Oneiric 3 is offline  
20-12-2019, 15:30   #34
loyatemu
Registered User
 
loyatemu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 11,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaoth Laidir View Post
I'm sure he can give you the details, but I know he qualified in climatology back in the early days and then worked as a professional weather forecaster in the US. He's more qualified than most commentators when it comes to this subject.
fair enough, I don't claim any great expertise in this area. But AFAIK 99% of scientists working in this and related fields accept the hypothesis; and even MTC now seems to be backtracking on his previous dismissal of it.
loyatemu is offline  
(2) thanks from:
20-12-2019, 16:21   #35
blanch152
Registered User
 
blanch152's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 10,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coles View Post
It's called Stage 5 Climate Change Denial.
"Oh dear, too late, there's nothing we can do. Let's just carry on as we were."

It's not going to work. Biodiversity collapse. Food security. Ocean acidification. Famine. Resource conflict. Climate migration.

The science is absolutely crystal clear. I don't really care about the personal contortions that anyone else puts themselves through as the penny drops.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-stages-denial
Biodiversity collapse and food security issues are being caused by overpopulation, not the burning of fossil fuels.

Famine has a number of causes, including climate change, overpopulation, poor agricultural practices. After all, the Great Famine in Ireland had nothing to do with climate change.

I support higher carbon taxes in Ireland, I support the banning of diesel cars, I support the phasing out of single-use plastic, I support subsidies for solar panels, I support investment in making homes energy-efficient etc. etc. I vote Green because more needs to be done on these issues.

To me, M.T's post isn't saying these aren't needed, it is saying that they aren't sufficient, and that other larger engineering solutions will be needed, as the sea-level will rise even if we stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow.

Like all zealots, you dismiss any opposing argument without even thinking about it.
blanch152 is offline  
Advertisement
20-12-2019, 16:27   #36
Larbre34
Registered User
 
Larbre34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 12,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by loyatemu View Post
fair enough, I don't claim any great expertise in this area. But AFAIK 99% of scientists working in this and related fields accept the hypothesis; and even MTC now seems to be backtracking on his previous dismissal of it.
Detailed analysis of the acceptance in the field of the IPCC anthropogenic climate change position, concludes 80%
Larbre34 is offline  
Thanks from:
20-12-2019, 16:34   #37
Coles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 995
Zealot? Lol.

If you feel the IPCC is wrong then write them a strongly worded letter. And well done for cutting out single use plastic.
Coles is offline  
20-12-2019, 16:36   #38
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by M.T. Cranium View Post
More recently, I have come around to the belief that the current warming is probably about two-thirds natural and one-third anthropogenic in origins. That ratio is perhaps going to change over time but will remain the complex foundation for further climate change in the near to mid-range future.
This bit interests me no end.

How did you come to the belief that current warming is probably 33% anthropogenic in origin?
marathon19 is offline  
20-12-2019, 16:42   #39
Coles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 995
Quote:
Originally Posted by marathon19 View Post
This bit interests me no end.

How did you come to the belief that current warming is probably 33% anthropogenic in origin?
The actual scientific evidence shows that without anthropogenic warming the world would be cooling. Anthropogenic warming is 100%, not 33%.

https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Contrib25-30.png

Last edited by Coles; 20-12-2019 at 16:46.
Coles is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
20-12-2019, 16:56   #40
Gaoth Laidir
Registered User
 
Gaoth Laidir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coles View Post
Are you suggesting that we ignore the IPCC and wait for the credible data that will support this "serious alternative" theory?

The IPCC has done a lot of work on this. It seems silly to try to create a middle ground between the conclusions of the best scientific minds in the world and a bunch of fossil fuel funded rightwing crazies.
No, I'm not suggesting we ignore the IPCC. I didn't say that. Nor should we ignore any science on the subject. You seem to be doing just that and dismissinf his researchnwithout having looked at it.

MT's original post seems to be now lost in a haze of the usual attempts at discrediting the author by the usual individuals. I was wondering who would be the first to mention oil-funded, and it was you. Congrats.

MT has a vast body of work done on many areas of climatology, including the effect of astronomical forces on energy timelines on Earth. He's not quite novice or a charlatan. His very presence with his forecast every day is due to his interest in researching weather and climate of different regions in his model. I'd suggest you and a few others first hear the man out before going on the personal attack.

Last edited by Gaoth Laidir; 20-12-2019 at 17:28.
Gaoth Laidir is offline  
20-12-2019, 17:18   #41
Coles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 995
Astrological forces influencing climate? Interesting. I doubt if the IPCC has considered that possibility. I'm a Leo.
Coles is offline  
20-12-2019, 17:24   #42
Nabber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,455
Such a shame....

Exclude the fact it's MT and add in any other poster. Their thoughts and ideas are presented well and posted on a public forum to be read and challenged. Instead of digesting and dissecting the post, some people have decided to attack the poster and not the content.


The toxicity from some people when alternatives to AGW is more alarming than the climate.
Nabber is offline  
20-12-2019, 17:28   #43
Gaoth Laidir
Registered User
 
Gaoth Laidir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coles View Post
Astrological forces influencing climate? Interesting. I doubt if the IPCC has considered that possibility. I'm a Leo.
I meant astronomical!
Gaoth Laidir is offline  
Thanks from:
20-12-2019, 17:31   #44
blanch152
Registered User
 
blanch152's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 10,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nabber View Post
Such a shame....

Exclude the fact it's MT and add in any other poster. Their thoughts and ideas are presented well and posted on a public forum to be read and challenged. Instead of digesting and dissecting the post, some people have decided to attack the poster and not the content.


The toxicity from some people when alternatives to AGW is more alarming than the climate.
What is worse is that they are missing the point completely. He is not saying that AGW isn't happening, he is saying that because AGW is augmenting natural warming, we need to do more than stop burning fossil fuels.
blanch152 is offline  
20-12-2019, 17:48   #45
Tuisceanch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 732
Quote:
More recently, I have come around to the belief that the current warming is probably about two-thirds natural and one-third anthropogenic in origins. That ratio is perhaps going to change over time but will remain the complex foundation for further climate change in the near to mid-range future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marathon19 View Post
This bit interests me no end.

How did you come to the belief that current warming is probably 33% anthropogenic in origin?
Yes I'm also interested to know what evidence this is based on and also who else supports this view. Why is so difficult to get answers to such basic questions? Surely the OP would be able to help out.
Tuisceanch is offline  
Thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet