Climate Change: Fact or Fiction

Morkel

International Captain
Staff
21,704
18,768
LittleDavey83 LittleDavey83 here's a wrap for putting in the effort. While I stand on the opposite side of the argument, you've certainly done your research, and I agree that such an important topic, one that has severe repercussions regardless of which direction we go, needs to be scrutinised in depth, and not just fall for the emotive, politicised, or "it looks to me like" arguments that are only based on agenda.
 

Porthoz

International Captain
Staff
26,128
10,519
Third Rock from the Sun
Sure you can find the odd extremes, the outliers but despite the disproportionate coverage they receive because they make the extreme headline grabbing statements they are the exception. I've listened to many reputable climatologists and authorities and while they emphasise the importance of action they generally say they're unsure of the future changes.
They're unsure of future changes, but emphasise the importance of action... that says all about climate change science.

They're not basing their appeal on the scientific method, because they simply cannot. They are simply basing it against the "what if" motto of the worst possible outcomes (and I don't mean those of climate extremists) of highly inaccurate climate models.

I have no issue with that btw, because there is no reason for us and governments to do more.

I am totally on LittleDavey83 LittleDavey83 's brainwave though. Climate change science is almost junk science, given how inaccurate and infantile it is. There just isn't enough knowledge or historical data to make a decent model that even approximates measured reality, and that tells me that at the most basic of levels, there are fundamental flaws in either the data or the method of input.
And this is where I draw the line, because I cannot accept the destruction of civilisation as it stands (through financial collapse), to satisfy an unproven feeling that we're heading for a doomsday caused by ourselves if we don't act drastically.
 

Dash

NRL Captain
3,398
2,586
Brisbane
They're unsure of future changes, but emphasise the importance of action... that says all about climate change science.

They're not basing their appeal on the scientific method, because they simply cannot. They are simply basing it against the "what if" motto of the worst possible outcomes (and I don't mean those of climate extremists) of highly inaccurate climate models.

I have no issue with that btw, because there is no reason for us and governments to do more.

I am totally on LittleDavey83 LittleDavey83 's brainwave though. Climate change science is almost junk science, given how inaccurate and infantile it is. There just isn't enough knowledge or historical data to make a decent model that even approximates measured reality, and that tells me that at the most basic of levels, there are fundamental flaws in either the data or the method of input.
And this is where I draw the line, because I cannot accept the destruction of civilisation as it stands (through financial collapse), to satisfy an unproven feeling that we're heading for a doomsday caused by ourselves if we don't act drastically.
Destruction of civilisation through financial collapse? Speaking of infantile doomsday predictions...
 

Jason Simmons

NRL Captain
3,099
3,355
They're unsure of future changes, but emphasise the importance of action... that says all about climate change science.

They're not basing their appeal on the scientific method, because they simply cannot. They are simply basing it against the "what if" motto of the worst possible outcomes (and I don't mean those of climate extremists) of highly inaccurate climate models.

I have no issue with that btw, because there is no reason for us and governments to do more.

I am totally on LittleDavey83 LittleDavey83 's brainwave though. Climate change science is almost junk science, given how inaccurate and infantile it is. There just isn't enough knowledge or historical data to make a decent model that even approximates measured reality, and that tells me that at the most basic of levels, there are fundamental flaws in either the data or the method of input.
And this is where I draw the line, because I cannot accept the destruction of civilisation as it stands (through financial collapse), to satisfy an unproven feeling that we're heading for a doomsday caused by ourselves if we don't act drastically.
I hope no-one howls at you, as they did me, for saying this exact thing... Apparently that’s the only way to have a climate discussion...

Here is a point the climate change crowd really don’t like admitting.
 

Porthoz

International Captain
Staff
26,128
10,519
Third Rock from the Sun
Destruction of civilisation through financial collapse? Speaking of infantile doomsday predictions...
There is obviously a degree of hyperbole in the comment, and I should have added "as we know it", not as a total destruction.
That said, the prediction of a financial collapse as a consequence of rushed draconian climate change measures, actually has a more solid base than that of a civilisation end due to climate change, which is often the message being passed, not by the actual scientists mind you, but by the media and through social platforms, including this one.
 

Jason Simmons

NRL Captain
3,099
3,355
There is obviously a degree of hyperbole in the comment, and I should have added "as we know it", not as a total destruction.
That said, the prediction of a financial collapse as a consequence of rushed draconian climate change measures, actually has a more solid base than that of a civilisation end due to climate change, which is often the message being passed, not by the actual scientists mind you, but by the media and through social platforms, including this one.
C’mon, really? But we have folks whose qualifications include: failing to finish high school, tending dive bars and teaching drama to kids at high school, telling us ‘the world is going to end in like, 12 years and you’re biggest concern is how they’re going to pay for it?‘ (Cue rapturous applause from a truly inspired / insipid audience).

That seems like a solid enough base for all lefties to rally behind, right?
Post automatically merged:

I hope no-one howls at you, as they did me, for saying this exact thing... Apparently that’s the only way to have a climate discussion...

Here is a point the climate change crowd really don’t like admitting.
apols -virtually every temperature increase climate scientists have predicted, has been wrong...
 
Last edited:

Dash

NRL Captain
3,398
2,586
Brisbane
apols -virtually every temperature increase climate scientists have predicted, has been wrong...
This is actually not true, most have been reasonably accurate, and when they've overshot the mark it's generally because emissions were lower than predicted (due to regulations introduced over the 30+ years since the models were introduced). If anything it adds weight to the argument that lower emissions = lower temperatures.
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,431
1,119
Bundy
This is actually not true, most have been reasonably accurate, and when they've overshot the mark it's generally because emissions were lower than predicted (due to regulations introduced over the 30+ years since the models were introduced). If anything it adds weight to the argument that lower emissions = lower temperatures.
Dash Dash - do you have some data to back that claim up?

I think you'll find that temperatures have generally been towards the low end of predictions, while emissions have been at the higher end, or higher. As I pointed out earlier upthread, the models' climate sensitivity is far higher than anything observed. And the more recent models, with more detailed inputs and processes, are even worse than the older, simpler models.

Despite 50-odd years of climate science, the 'envelope' of climate sensitivity has not changed - it's still the 1.5 - 4.5*C that it was back in the late 1970's and early 80's. The best estimate value has consistently been lowered over that time, and recent science based on observations is trying to push it out of the bottom of that envelope (but copping a lot of blowback as a result). The high end is a "fat tail" in 'probability distribution' solely based on positive feedbacks which may or may not even occur - the actual effect of a doubling of CO2 itself with no feedback is only 1/4 of the figures you hear. The rest is down to an increase in water vapour, itself a greenhouse gas, and other positive feedbacks (melting ice increasing sea surface area and therefore allowing the ocean to warm further etc etc).


Also thanks to those who have commented positively, I appreciate it! I don't really care which side of the debate people are on - some of my best friends are people I'd class as 'alarmist' - science is science and at the end of the day, Mother Nature will prove things one way or another. Or possibly shake everything up instead - as she's done countless times before!!
 

Dash

NRL Captain
3,398
2,586
Brisbane
LittleDavey83 LittleDavey83



Considering some of these models were built 30 or 40 years ago, I'd say they've done a pretty good job.
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,431
1,119
Bundy
LittleDavey83 LittleDavey83



Considering some of these models were built 30 or 40 years ago, I'd say they've done a pretty good job.
I'm familiar with that study, yeah. Sure, they've done an okay job, especially those done in the 70's when computers were still in their relative infancy. However, there is also at least one recently published paper showing how "high ECS and TCR values derived from a majority of CMIP5 climate models are inconsistent with observed warming during the historical period." In other words, the models run too hot when compared to reality. The paper your articles relate to only compare up to the CMIP3 models; the CMIP5 run hotter, with the current CMIP6 models in production running hotter again, as I've already mentioned. The paper I've linked to above uses up to the CMIP5 models, which are more recent and more relevant.

There is also at least one rebuttal to the paper you linked to, hopefully being prepared as a published response. This article goes into quite a bit of detail about some sources of error in the Hausfather paper, while comparing it to the paper I linked to above - you may find it interesting/informative. The analysis finds that:
"The ZH19 data samples are too short to provide valid TCR values and their regression model is specified in such a way that it is susceptible to spurious precision. So I don’t think their paper is informative as an exercize in climate model evaluation.
It is, however, informative with regards to past IPCC emission/concentration projections and shows that the IPCC has for a long time been relying on exaggerated forecasts of global greenhouse gas emissions."


Another topic I'd like to look into but haven't the time, is the spatial pattern of predicted warming vs observations across the globe. What I have seen on the topic isn't great for the models...averages can dilute vast inaccuracies.
 

MrMoore

QCup Player
641
269
Is Greta just a puppet? Ignoring the climate change mambo jumbo, does a 16yo girl really have the "answer" or was she just put there for dramatic effect. If a highschool girl started screaming in your face about stealing her childhood, would you believe it? I wouldn't, I'd just think this bitch is crazy and move along.
 

Jason Simmons

NRL Captain
3,099
3,355
Is Greta just a puppet? Ignoring the climate change mambo jumbo, does a 16yo girl really have the "answer" or was she just put there for dramatic effect. If a highschool girl started screaming in your face about stealing her childhood, would you believe it? I wouldn't, I'd just think this bitch is crazy and move along.
Someone should have screamed at her that her ‘childhood’ hasn’t been stolen, she’s still in the bloody middle of it, now go outside, get some sun and enjoy it, while you still can.
 

kooly87

NRL Player
2,215
3,643
Is Greta just a puppet? Ignoring the climate change mambo jumbo, does a 16yo girl really have the "answer" or was she just put there for dramatic effect. If a highschool girl started screaming in your face about stealing her childhood, would you believe it? I wouldn't, I'd just think this bitch is crazy and move along.
She wasn't 'screaming in your face' or in anyone's face. She was standing on a stage, a stage she was actually invited to come and speak on. She was direct and impassioned and clearly quite damning in her tone, but she's also 16 years old, and I'm sure she can be forgiven for any small lack of composure or polish you might have felt she was missing.

Regardless of your political beliefs, it takes tremendous courage to believe in something so passionately and to be able to stand on a stage and present those beliefs to the world and then to have to defend them from adults who will attack you you personally simply because they don't agree with your political message.

I think if you thought a bit harder about what some other teenagers are doing with their time and their talents, you'd see that Greta Thunberg is just about the least of our worries for the next generation.

Children do not have all the answers, and nor should we expect them to. But they will live on this planet far longer than we will, and the consequences of our actions will affect them far more and for far longer than they will affect us, and we should welcome the fact that they are at the very least engaged with that future and interested in helping to shape it, regardless of if you agree with their beliefs or the way they want to shape that change.
 
Last edited:

Morkel

International Captain
Staff
21,704
18,768
My take on Greta is this:

Why should we give any more weight to her feelings on the topic than anyone else who is similarly driven? Her research on the topic comes from somewhere, and as we can see from this thread, there are people on both sides of the argument who feel they are very well informed, and for all purposes, are quite well informed. Yet they have both come to very different conclusions.

So why should everyone take notice of her or feel her testimony should hold more weight? She's not the first teenager to feel that she's been "robbed of her childhood". Teenager's have existential crises over their video game progress being deleted.
 

Nashy

International Captain
Staff
41,986
17,607
Brisbane
Why isn't anyone mentioning the Facebook bug which proved her old man does her social media posts pretending to be her?

I don't have a problem with her in anyway having her say. But she's been shown up twice as a liar, once with the train, the other being that she speaks for herself, when it's clear she doesn't.
 

Ffs...

NYC Player
147
150
Ha, righto. I'll play until I get abused...

I'm not a scientist, but I am an engineer - so I do know a thing or two about maths/stats/academicia/etc. I can generally follow most scientific papers, and love reading - even if its dry! Research is my thing...I tend to get mindly obsessed with a certain topic and research the hell out of it until I feel I've learned everything I care to. I believe in knowing a little about a lot of things. I know how stats can be tortured to give an inaccurate picture and I believe I have a pretty good BS filter.

In the mid-2000's, a work colleague introduced me to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". I was horrified - and immediately began researching everything I could find. Especially diving into the nuts and bolts of things, rather than relying on the media which I had already grown to distrust by that stage. It wasn't long before I started finding all kinds of flaws - inaccuracies, exaggerations, circular reasoning, throwing out data which didn't match the theory, the lack of an ability to replicate which is literally at the heart of science. I was stunned - why was this science not held to the same standards as I'd been taught in my engineering training?

Long story short, the more I researched, the more I grew to doubt that we could even tell if anything catastrophic was actually happening...and nothing I have seen since has convinced me otherwise. I have spent thousands of hours going through scientific journal papers, reports, studies, supplementary material. I have downloaded hundreds of GB of data and run my own studies and stats and checks. I'm not saying all the science is bad, by any stretch, but there is a significant proportion that barely stands up at best. This is true for many branches of science, by the way, not just climate science...health/medicine is actually another particularly bad one too.

Before we continue the conversation I think it's very important to have confirmed definitions for the various terms in use - because they all mean something different to different people. Huge Huge - would you like to provide your definition of "climate change" for me, so we're sure that we're talking about the same thing?
Post automatically merged:



I also hope you evaluate evidence that supports your view with the same rigour? It's natural to have bias; we're only human after all, and that's exactly what the scientific method is supposed to help remove - our own fallibility! But that only works if done right.

I believe "climate change" is too broad a topic to just say "yes" or "no" to, btw. There are so many facets and components and moving parts... Each area/topic needs to be considered on its own before trying to form a bigger picture.
You summed it up in the first comment 'I'm not a scientist' Yet you think you are able to critique the issue better than actual scientists who specilaisein the field? Take a moment to think about how arrogant that is. If you had open heart surgery would you see an expert who has performed multiple open heart surgeries, or a dentist?
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,431
1,119
Bundy
You summed it up in the first comment 'I'm not a scientist' Yet you think you are able to critique the issue better than actual scientists who specilaisein the field? Take a moment to think about how arrogant that is. If you had open heart surgery would you see an expert who has performed multiple open heart surgeries, or a dentist?
Did you read anything else beyond that, by any chance? What are your qualifications/experience which enable you to judge the validity of what you're told?

Because I'm not a qualified scientist, does that mean I'm unable to understand technical papers? One of my degrees is in "engineering science" - does that make me more qualified, in your eyes? What would you deem to be a "valid" 'climate science' qualification that makes someone qualified to discuss the science?

I have never said I can critique the issue better than specialists in the field, that's not a claim I'd ever make. But I am intelligent enough to read, comprehend, and critique technical writings and not just accept media reports about them which, in my experience, vastly overstate/simplify/dramatise the study's actual findings. Across all fields, mind you, not just climate science.

Your simplisic analogy fails on so many levels I'm not even going to go there. You don't need to be a scientist to 'do' science. You don't need to be an engineer to invent a machine, or design a road. Did you have a particular area of climate science you wish to discuss or are you just here to throw stones?
 

Broncapz

NRL Player
1,084
1,885
From a Risk/Benefit analysis, it doesn't make sense to 'hope' it'll all work out. Action just seems like the pragmatic move, regardless of where you stand. Less coal mining is better for the planet and that's just a cold hard fact.

Our economies are far too top heavy, and that problem is only getting worse. They will survive transition to renewables, don't believe the lies other wise.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create free account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Top