The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Rallying to the Chief Scientist's Call

Rallying to the Chief Scientist's Call

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Thanks John, nice to have someone talking sense'

We get so much from the doom ratbags here. I wonder how many times someone has to tell them it can't happen, as the doom preachers claim.

I wonder if Ruddy came back, & told them the truth, would they believe?
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 30 September 2011 3:42:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What I am saying is that climate models are completely worthless; climate modeling is not science.

If you don't believe me check out:

http://www.scienceheresy.com/2011_03/hindcasting/index.html
Posted by John Reid, Friday, 30 September 2011 4:48:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles wrote:

>>I think he is saying there's no point in bankrupting yourself putting up a fence at the edge of the cliff, if the drop is only four feet.>>

The trouble is we don't know the length of the drop. It might be four feet or four inches or four hundred feet.

I do agree with John Reid that climate models are useless. It is as much beyond our ability to model a complex system like climate with all the unknowns and unknown unknowns as it is for banks to model financial risk.

But what I do know is that the preponderance of evidence, taken as a whole, points to a probable catastrophe if we continue pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It therefore seems prudent for the WORLD to take out some insurance.

(Australia acting on its own with a carbon tax is a pathetic exercise in futility.)

I don't expect the WORLD to do anything much about emissions so we'll run the experiment and see what "transpires" (pun intended).

As I said in my previous post, we should have the answer by around 2030.

How old are you Pericles?

Think you'll still be around and compos mentis in 2030? Maybe we can resume this discussion then. :-)
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 30 September 2011 5:47:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John Reid wrote "As a researcher with CSIRO with a PhD in Upper Atmosphere Physics, I was involved in developing numerical fluid dynamical models similar to those used by climate modellers today."

John's references Prof Akasofu's case against IPCC modelling predictions. Plenty of counter-argument is out there against Prof Akasofu. Scientific consensus is unmoved by his argument because IPCC models do not claim to provide short term predictions, forward or backward, and that is just what Prof Akasofu has applied the models to do. IPCC models predict a long term trajectory with quantified uncertainties. It's like kicking a goal in a swirling cross-wind.

Something is trotted out daily about why we should not take action, be it amazing new modes of power, carbon capture possibilities or possible causes, other than man-made, for climate change caused by global-warming.

If taking no action or if "wait and see" was a rational option I'd be on board. The problems are projected long term and the attempt at solutions must take the long view as well.

What would be the bigger disaster for the survival of my DNA into the future? Doubt and do nothing then find out (or my progeny find out)I should have done something, or, attempt solutions while scientific consensus gradually forms that there was never actually anything man-made to worry about? The third path is to risk my DNA, because I'm stupidly without doubt, and believe in a global conspiracy theory.

Quite an easy decision for the rational mind.
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 30 September 2011 11:12:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lucifer have you ever considered that you may be a bit too close to the gravy to see the train.

Your post is a bit short of common sense anyway, like all global warming garbage.

You can only get serious warming if you include positive feed back, & most of the new peer reviewed research says that is not what happens.

Have you ever thought that a vast increase in newly productive land becomes available in the north for every degree of warming, should it ever occur?
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 1 October 2011 12:15:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most of you are no doubt aware that one of the alternatives to greenhouse gas induced climate change is the proposition that cosmic rays might have something to do with climate change.

Whether this is true or not is NOT my issue.

What is, is how different standards are applied to the different propositions.

Here's one example I came across the other day: NewScientist magazine -- a magazine very loud in its advocacy of AGW -- handling a story that marginally touches on cosmic rays contribution to climate change.

"Other evidence shows that even if cosmic rays do affect the climate, the effect must be small. Changes in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere due to changes in solar activity cannot explain global warming, as average cosmic ray intensities have been increasing since 1985 even as the world has warmed - the opposite of what should happen if cosmic rays produce climate-cooling clouds.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128274.900-cloudmaking-another-human-effect-on-the-climate.html

There we have it: counted out--BUSTED!

"as average cosmic ray intensities have been increasing since 1985 even as the world has warmed - the opposite of what should happen if cosmic rays produce climate-cooling clouds."

Yet, the same magazine/or its stable of hack-reporters would never draw the same conclusion about CO2 & warming. And would be very quick to try and excuse away any lack of correlation.

Yes, Mr Chief Scientist, let us have more debate but please do not try and sell us the proposition that all the dirt is emanating from the skeptics corner--to do so is more like politicking than real science!
Posted by SPQR, Saturday, 1 October 2011 7:24:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy