Emma Thompson on Global Warming

Remove this Banner Ad

medusala said:
You truly are pathetic, I posted links to two people in the field including one peer reviewed paper.

You are just being an annoying campaigner for the sake of it (again) whilst adding nothing to the thread.

.

What do you think they are?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671
Click to expand...
Are you serious?

I asked for links, you provided them. Good for you. I never denied that. As I said, it was all you needed to do. I'll get around to reading them eventually and maybe this time they will do what you say they do.

Thanks for the links. But still, as I said, the rest of your post was rubbish. Unnecessary waffle and invective.

Maybe take a bit more time to read the posts you're replying to so angrily.
 
medusala said:
I don't have to be a scientist to understand that the models have no predictive ability. A simple understanding of statistics is all that is necessary.
Click to expand...
Lol. There speaks someone with absolutely no clue as to how the models are constructed. Do you think they buy the models at the local toy shop and glue them together?

medusala said:
You cant present a heavily skewed worst case outcome as being a probable outcome. Its absurd.
Click to expand...
True. And your point is?



medusala said:
Lol, its very simple as I have just explained. I used to work in investment banking on a trading floor. You remind me of all those convinced that VAR was impregnable. Of course it wasn't. And that was far easier to model than climate.
Click to expand...
Unless you subscribe to the "toy shop" models view of the world (and I guess you do - see above) I do not accept that models of human behaviour (on which all trading floor must be based) are easier to model than even something as complex as climate. After all with climate, absent a colossal meteor strike or sudden catastrophic volcano activity you do have a fairly simple input (the Sun) which for practical purposes is highly predictable in relevant time periods acting on what is otherwise a closed system. With human behaviour (as Nassim Taleb reminds us) is predictable only in its unpredictability.

medusala said:
Having a model that says temps will increase by 4c or whatever is NOT science, its simply a model.
Click to expand...

Yeah, riiiiiiiight. Cos these sciency types that spend months and months in large teams trying to make sense of the individual bits of data they have gathered (like surface temperature recordings all over the place) and trying to work out what assumptions that best explain historical data might sensibly be applied to future projections are NOT DOING SCIENCE. What do you call what they are doing? Gluing cars together?

Give us all a break from your ignorance.

medusala said:
If you want to see detailed criticism on why such models are flawed see comments by one of the worlds leading physicists in Freeman Dyson.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment/2151/

Dyson: Well, both. I mean it’s a fact that they don’t know how to model it. And the question is, how does it happen that they end up believing their models? But I have seen that happen in many fields. You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being The whole livelihood of all these people depends on people being scared.”real. It is also true that the whole livelihood of all these people depends on people being scared. Really, just psychologically, it would be very difficult for them to come out and say, “Don’t worry, there isn’t a problem.” It’s sort of natural, since their whole life depends on it being a problem. I don’t say that they’re dishonest. But I think it’s just a normal human reaction. It’s true of the military also. They always magnify the threat. Not because they are dishonest; they really believe that there is a threat and it is their job to take care of it. I think it’s the same as the climate community, that they do in a way have a tremendous vested interest in the problem being taken more seriously than it is.
Click to expand...

Freeman Dyson was a leading physicist. Now he is, what, 92, something tells me he doesn't remain one of the sharpest tool in the box. And I do not think much of his science communication skills. Take the sentences you have highlighted.

I mean it’s a fact that they don’t know how to model it.
This statement is both a truism and completely wrong.

The sense in which it is a truism is that, as a matter of agreed scientific fact, no one is running around the world saying "Guys, look at my model. It will give 95% probability predictions for climate events over the next 100 years (with given inputs on what we humans choose to contribute)"

The sense in which it is completely wrong is that it is very well understood what the major factors are that impact on the climate system and models (of varying reliability) can be made with varying predictive value. But all models are "representations". That means all models are not exact replications of what they are modelling. The extent to which any model is useful is the extent to which the model incorporates the relevant features of the system is purports to model.

Take the second sentence:
how does it happen that they end up believing their models?

This statement makes a mockery of scientific enquiry. This is not surprising since, apart from once being a very sharp tool, Freeman Dyson is also a God worshipper. So he does alot of dabbling in "believing".

First, no "scientist" should ever "believe" anything. At best a scientist contingently accepts no more than that any scientific proposition is not refuted by any known data and thus represents a "best fit" explanation.

Secondly, if you followed my discussion above (I am quite sure you dinna) any scientist knows their model is only a representation of reality and therefore inherently unreliable. Which doesn't mean all models are essentially worthless. After all our brains use the data collected by our eyes and construct reasonably accurate representations of the world in our head sufficient for us to walk around in (and watch the footy). But even these models are necessarily unreliable and, more frequently than we like to admit, prone to error. But it is still better than walking around with your eyes shut. Which is what those who reject climate models are doing.

Finally, what the flying f Freeman Dyson knows about the scientific work done to incorporate into climate models the relevant features of the climate system I don't know. I don't know for the simple reason that he has never produced a scientific paper on the subject of climate science. But hey, don't stop going to him for your footy tips moo moo.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Windhover said:
Finally, what the flying f Freeman Dyson knows about the scientific work done to incorporate into climate models the relevant features of the climate system I don't know. I don't know for the simple reason that he has never produced a scientific paper on the subject of climate science. But hey, don't stop going to him for your footy tips moo moo.
Click to expand...

FFS. Just because he isn't a climate scientist doesn't mean his criticisms have no validity. Just as those who showed that the Hockey Stick was a joke were not climate scientists. The research and models depend on other fields such as statistics. This is very simple to understand but seemingly way beyond your mental capacity.

Unless you subscribe to the "toy shop" models view of the world (and I guess you do - see above) I do not accept that models of human behaviour (on which all trading floor must be based) are easier to model than even something as complex as climate..
Click to expand...

What is the biggest input of their models? CO2 emissions. Which depends on what?? Oh, so now economics is involved. You clearly (also) have no knowledge of trading models either. If you did you would have heard of black box hedge funds which rely ENTIRELY on models. I guess they have hundreds of billions under management because people believe they are based on "toy shop" models. We can clearly add finance to the list of things you have no idea about.
 
http://m.brisbanetimes.com.au/queen...or-climate-change-action-20151128-glahpd.html

Climate Change has been hijacked as a front for socialists. A good vehicle too because its like a strawman argument taken to the nth degree. Speak out against changing the way the economy works or call the socialists up on it and you are an eco Terrorist right wing nut and a denier.
Wiah this could all just go back to stopping polution and finding better solutions than coal.

But I guess that way never worked back a few decades ago when the big scare was the ozone hole which didn't change anything socially or politically on a grand scale in the end died down sometime in the nineties. I guess the bar has to be upped. It's interesting to watch it all from the sidelines with a bit of perspective.

And before a few flogs on here quote me, yes I'm all for reducing our carbon dioxide footprint. It's just interesting to see how it has been hijacked politically.
 
medusala said:
FFS. Just because he isn't a climate scientist doesn't mean his criticisms have no validity.
Click to expand...
True, but unsurprisingly, only in a vanishingly tiny way. I will repeat my rhetorical question:
[what the flying f Freeman Dyson knows about the scientific work done to incorporate into climate models the relevant features of the climate system I don't know. I don't know for the simple reason that he has never produced a scientific paper on the subject of climate science.]

I mean, if he has no knowledge that he has incorporated into a peer-reviewed scientific paper sure, "his criticisms" might still have "some validity". But quite what the rest of us are supposed to make of it and why we should pay more attention to it than the criticisms of a kindergarten student (whose criticisms might well also have "some" validity) you have not explained.

medusala said:
Just as those who showed that the Hockey Stick was a joke were not climate scientists.
Click to expand...
No, they were at best comedians, as even you seem to recognise. I know of no climate scientist who agrees with your comics either. Do you take medical advice from Lord Monkey?

medusala said:
The research and models depend on other fields such as statistics..
Click to expand...
Yes.
medusala said:
This is very simple to understand but seemingly way beyond your mental capacity.
Click to expand...
Respectively yes, I am unsure the basis for your incorrect presumption and even less clear what the point is, if any, you are attempting to make.



medusala said:
What is the biggest input of their models? CO2 emissions.
Click to expand...
Umm, I think you mean the Sun.

medusala said:
Which depends on what?? Oh, so now economics is involved.
Click to expand...
Of course economics "is involved" but your process of "reasoning" with its false assumptions and non sequitur doesn't help anyone get there.

medusala said:
You clearly (also) have no knowledge of trading models either..
Click to expand...

. . . because, umm, well whatever.

medusala said:
If you did you would have heard of black box hedge funds which rely ENTIRELY on models. I guess they have hundreds of billions under management because people believe they are based on "toy shop" models. We can clearly add finance to the list of things you have no idea about.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, if you look back, you will see that I argue that economic modelling is more complex than climate science modelling so why you would presume to think I think it is based on "toy shop" models is just another of those non sequiturs you surround yourself with.

The fact that something as complex as economic modelling is still a useful predictor upon which to base investment decisions underlines the importance of accepting that climate science modelling also makes useful predictions that inform us of the risk ahead in the event we do not take remedial action to reduce the increase in atmospheric carbon.
 
Windhover said:
Umm, I think you mean the Sun.
Click to expand...

Right so its the sun not co2 emissions increasing that has caused global warming.

Interesting that you now make a well known denier argument.

Nice Rick McCosker impersonation by you in this thread.
 
medusala said:
Right so its the sun not co2 emissions increasing that has caused global warming..
Interesting that you now make a well known denier argument.
Click to expand...

You don't handle complex causality well, do you?

"The major input" to the models must be the Sun, since it is the energy of the Sun that is the major source of global warming. "The major output" for the models must be the dissipation of that energy (heat) into outer space. The most significant explanation for the direction of surface temperature change on Earth is the increase in atmospheric carbon, in particular CO2, since it is the effect of that increase that on the major input and, more importantly, the major output.

At least, that's what those greenie climate scientists say based on their models and as I think even you know, I am prepared to accept them. Particularly over you, Freeman Dyson, or any other opinionista.
 
Windhover said:
"The major input" to the models must be the Sun, since it is the energy of the Sun that is the major source of global warming.
Click to expand...

Heat not change in temperatures.

The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: it is a greater than a 90 percent certainty that emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have caused “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century.”
 
medusala said:
Heat not change in temperatures.
Click to expand...
?

medusala said:
The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: it is a greater than a 90 percent certainty that emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have caused “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century.”
Click to expand...

Well done, you are finally quoting from a respectable source document. It has been superseded by AR 5) which explains improvements in the models (those thingies that seemingly upset you so much) increases the certainty of the conclusion you give. So glad you have joined the orthodox view. Next step is to make your individual contribution to make the change away from fossil fuels. By a bike and pedal forwards for a change.:)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

i am at the moment a proponent of the "scientific consensus" due to my lack of knowledge on the subject. but i have a skeptic inside waiting to come out. the graphs that are often used to show global temperature trends are sometimes only a couple of hundred years which in the grand scheme of things is a minute fraction in the life of the planet.
.http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
 
Grin said:
Are there still anti science crazies who think global warming is a conspiracy?

I guess you still find the odd anti vacc crazy too.

Far right and far left anti science nutters :rolleyes:
Different sides of the same coin.
Click to expand...
Climate change is no conspiracy.

Man made climate change is not real though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

maroon and blue
Politics Are we headed for a global famine?
Replies
14
Views
871
maroon and blue
maroon and blue
Aristotle Pickett
Politics Sky News Australia is a global hub for climate misinformation, report says
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
Kwality
K
Carringbush2010
  • Poll
Has the idealism of Globalization enabled the cause of geopolitical tensions?
Replies
24
Views
692
Carringbush2010
Carringbush2010
Gethelred
Society/Culture F&%$ the Police - On Philosophical Grounds
Replies
9
Views
878
barreness
barreness
CD Xbow
Saudi Arabia to chair UN forum on women's rights
Replies
5
Views
315
Ballarat Bob
B
Alite
Politics Japan has gone it’s own way on fighting inflation
Replies
12
Views
672
undefined
undefined
Ohitsthatguy
The Coalition initiated Robodebt on the most vulnerable...
2 3
Replies
59
Views
2K
Gethelred
Gethelred

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top