Climate Change and YSSY crosswinds?

[73qanda]

From today’s newspaper. A Qantas executive suggests the higher cancellation rate is due climate change.
Federal government aviation data shows that in September, 76.2 per cent of flights across all airlines landed on time, compared to the long-term average of 82.3 per cent. On-time departures averaged 78.4 per cent, compared to a long-term average of 83.7 per cent. Cancellation rates were also up at 2.2 per cent compared to 1.5 per cent over the long term, and Qantas cancelled 3.3 per cent of flights in the month.
​​​​​​​

[zanthrus]

HAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha........😂

[cattletruck]

Silly me and I thought it was due to sunspots.

[ExtraShot]

Poor OTP affecting KPIs. Hmmm, Need a reason so it doesn’t affect the.Bonus... ahhh! Everyone else is blaming Climate Change, why not us!?

[Green.Dot]

Moronic. Why can’t people just accept that sometimes the weather differs from the historical average. Doesn’t mean it’s going to continue as the new norm 🤦🏼*♂️

[machtuk]

Christ almighty! Would be cheaper to build every airport world wide as all over fields than to try and change what's been going on since the the planet was formed!
I bet the other Airlines CEO's (better known as Cash Extraction Officers) are kicking themselves they didn't get in on the Climate Change fairy tale!

[PPRuNeUser0198]

It was Andrew David who made this claim... @ https://www.sbs.com.au/news/qantas-executive-says-flight-delays-caused-by-climate-change

[Rated De]

It was Andrew David who made this claim... @ https://www.sbs.com.au/news/qantas-executive-says-flight-delays-caused-by-climate-change

Andrew David's aviation "insight" could be detailed on the back of a postage stamp with a crayon.

[Willie Nelson]

All pretty objective analysis and critique of Qantas’ statement by pilots. Indeed it must be a conspiracy by Qantas again. Sounds legit........

[ruprecht]

I burnt my toast this morning.

Damn you, climate change!

[machtuk]

Andrew David's aviation "insight" could be detailed on the back of a postage stamp with a crayon.

Hahahah I like that analogy of AD, he was a piece of work at Tigers also!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Well, Is not 'Our Continent' drifting NNE at the rate of about 15cm per year..?

THAT has just GOT to effect 'climate change'...…

And.... I hear that the 'Tropic of Capricorn' is also drifting N by about 15 m per year....so the Earths 'Angle of Bank' is changing..?

Wait for the 'climate change' from that !

Cheeeerrrsss….

[Brisbane Sinner]

Personally I blame same-sex marriage and new abortion laws.

[dr dre]

Is there anywhere in the article linked to above where AD directly blames what scientists would call climate change (increased carbon in the atmosphere, greenhouse effect) for the change in prevailing winds in Sydney this year?

Here’s his direct quotes from the article:

"We have seen wind velocities 34 per cent higher than the average of the last 30 years, and it’s a prevailing westerly rather than the south-south-westerly we’ve seen in the past,"

And

"That’s led to runway closures, meaning (aircraft) movements are slowed."

From what I can see this “story” is a media beat up, all he is saying is that there are more occurrences this year of a westerly wind occurring at YSSY necessitating the use of the single runway 25 instead of the parallels which would of course slow the flow rate down.

A lot of media figures with an agenda seem to be jumping on AD for nothing really.

[Berealgetreal]

It’s not Climate “change” anymore it’s Climate “emergency”.

[Rated De]

Hahahah I like that analogy of AD, he was a piece of work at Tigers also!

Has Andrew David any ideas on JFK or Amelia Earhart?

It might help.

[Maggie Island]

Personally I blame same-sex marriage and new abortion laws.

I blame Izzy Folau:}

[tio540]

You need to take Climate Change seriously. It’s the hottest temperature ever, except, 1934, 1962, 1974, 1987, and 12 million years ago.

[Giant Bird]

How about this as a cause as a novel idea. "The cause of the delay is spending too much on airport shops and too little too late on more runways."

[Derfred]

The scientific naivety of pilots constantly astounds me.

Aircraft fly because science works.

Aircraft and indeed spacecraft have evolved since first flight because scientists worked out how they work, and how to make them fly faster, higher and more efficiently using... I hate to say it... science.

Now that science says something that economists don’t want to hear, the pilots all go right wing and agree with the economists: scientists must be full of ****.... this can’t be right because it might affect my nice little world.

[Stickshift3000]

Well of course the planet is warming, it has been since the last ice age. Fact. Situation normal...

[tio540]

The scientific naivety of pilots constantly astounds me.

Aircraft fly because science works.

Aircraft and indeed spacecraft have evolved since first flight because scientists worked out how they work, and how to make them fly faster, higher and more efficiently using... I hate to say it... science.

Now that science says something that economists don’t want to hear, the pilots all go right wing and agree with the economists: scientists must be full of ****.... this can’t be right because it might affect my nice little world.

Yep, scientists gave the Wright Brothers all the data to build an aeroplane, And scientists said the world was flat, the earth was the centre of the universe, and that the world would warm 1.5 degrees if you leave an incandescent light on.

[601]

Now that science says something that economists don’t want to hear, the pilots all go right wing and agree with the economists:
Seems to me that the loudest voices are in fact the climate economists.
Would you fly an aircraft designed by an accountant rather than a aeronautical engineer?

[dr dre]

Yep, scientists gave the Wright Brothers all the data to build an aeroplane, And scientists said the world was flat, the earth was the centre of the universe, and that the world would warm 1.5 degrees if you leave an incandescent light on.

Actually, no.

Modern science began with Copernicus, Gallileo et al in the 16th century, and no serious scientist has ever said that the Earth is flat or the universe revolves around the earth since then.

In fact it has been widely known for about 2500 years that the earth is spherical, since the time of Pythagoras and Aristotle.

[Berealgetreal]

People start going all “right wing” when information is shoved down their throat 24/7.

The first to bleet would be the types you see getting around in Melbourne with multicoloured hair if we switched it all off and went back to cave living.

Most people support doing the right thing when it comes to the environment and most people couldn’t care less what their neighbour does in their bedroom. They do care when media, politicians etc start ramming hysteria and propaganda down children’s throats for their own ideological gain.

[nonsense]

Moronic. Why can’t people just accept that sometimes the weather differs from the historical average. Doesn’t mean it’s going to continue as the new norm 🤦🏼*♂️
How long, and by how much, does weather need to differ before you would consider it a new norm?

[Dexta]

As usual the truth is somewhere in the middle.
fact 1. The earths climate is always changing, due to many factors from the suns activity, tectonic plate movement, the earths tilt etc. etc. as well as by biological organisms, anything from microbes, phytoplankton, and all the way up to humans.
fact 2. Humans have been influencing micro climates for at least 30,000 years due to practices such as slash and burn, deforestation, damming etc.
fact 3. Humans are certainly polluting the atmosphere with all sorts of gasses and particles, which at some point needs to be addressed and reversed if possible.
The problem occurs when ideologies, political point scoring, beliefs, righteous anger and noble cause corruption take precedence over the facts and practical scientific solutions.

[73qanda]

The scientific naivety of pilots constantly astounds me.
I’m not so sure about that. I think that groups of pragmatic logical people might be more likely identify the anti-scientific methods being passed as science in the media.
For example;

A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable), implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[7] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-7)
andPhysicist Richard Feynman invoked the informal approach to communicating the basic principles of science in his 1974 commencement address at the California Institute of Technology (Feynman, 1985):

[There is an] idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. In summary, the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution, not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. (pp. 311-312)



These are basics in my mind and the use of climate models that are constantly being refined and manipulated and have often been inaccurate in the past just produce more hypothesis without a result of ‘scientific fact’. We are left with ‘general consensus’ and concern which is very different to scientific fact.
When people question why the hypothesis are being presented as fact they are met with insults and statement like
The scientific naivety of pilots constantly astounds me. which is really a thinly disguised insult.

[tio540]

How long, and by how much, does weather need to differ before you would consider it a new norm?

The atmosphere contains 0.041% carbon dioxide. Not even 1/2 of one percent.

[morno]

The atmosphere contains 0.041% carbon dioxide. Not even 1/2 of one percent.

But how do you know if that’s too much or not? Maybe 0.51% could mean catastrophic consequences.

Look, man made or not, it’s happening. The main thing now is what are we doing to adapt to the new norm?

And I can tell you now, living in one of the most polluted parts of the world, creating cleaner technologies and removing coal fired power stations will not only potentially improve the environments health, but it’ll certainly improve the health of billions of people!

[73qanda]

I agree with anyone that says it’s a good idea to clean up our environment and significantly reduce pollution.
Like every other poster I can’t ‘know’ that we are in a ‘climate emergency’.
There appears to be no middle ground on this subject.

[dr dre]

Look, man made or not, it’s happening. The main thing now is what are we doing to adapt to the new norm?

23 former heads of Fire and Emergency Services in Australia have been trying to meet with the PM all year to warn of the “new norm” in regards to bushfires in this country (hotter, longer, earlier, less capacity to perform Hazard Reduction Burns) and the need to adapt to it by vastly expanding firefighting capability to counter it. He’s refused to.

Firefighters generally aren’t, like what another poster alluded to, “multicoloured hair types living in inner city Melbourne”, or as our Deputy PM and leader of the National Party called “raving inner city lunatics”.

So if the experts in their field, acting on scientific evidence, who are trying to warn of the dangers are rudely dismissed by the second most important politician in this nation as a bunch a “raving lunatics” it seems there isn’t much politcial will to act and adapt to the “new norm”.

[fltlt]

23 former heads of Fire and Emergency Services in Australia have been trying to meet with the PM all year to warn of the “new norm” in regards to bushfires in this country (hotter, longer, earlier, less capacity to perform Hazard Reduction Burns) and the need to adapt to it by vastly expanding firefighting capability to counter it. He’s refused to.

Firefighters generally aren’t, like what another poster alluded to, “multicoloured hair types living in inner city Melbourne”, or as our Deputy PM and leader of the National Party called “raving inner city lunatics”.

So if the experts in their field, acting on scientific evidence, who are trying to warn of the dangers are rudely dismissed by the second most important politician in this nation as a bunch a “raving lunatics” it seems there isn’t much politcial will to act and adapt to the “new norm”.

What is the “new norm”, what was the norm prior to the Aborigines?
We get all worked up if things aren’t within our very limited norm.
We are all living on a rather large molten core, covered by a thin crust, hurtling around a massive fusion reactor, the poles and continents are constantly moving, as this 3rd rock from the sun is in constant threat of either a super volcano awakening, Yellowstone Caldera, or one of the many very large lump of rocks currently flying around in space, whose orbits we have no idea of and are capable of species extinction.
Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Emergency means money transfer, from our pockets to theirs, that’s all.
Here in CA the increase in fires used to be blamed on Climate Change, until the causes of most of them was ascertained, ill maintained utility transmission lines, homeless folks, car accidents and the odd firebug.
i wonder what the animals used to think way back before humans arrived, lightning strikes, forest fires, sure wish the humans would hurry up and build around here, so they will pour millions of dollars into protecting them and us?

its a religion, nothing more, nothing less.

[dr dre]

Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Emergency means money transfer, from our pockets to theirs, that’s all.
Here in CA the increase in fires used to be blamed on Climate Change, until the causes of most of them was ascertained, ill maintained utility transmission lines, homeless folks, car accidents and the odd firebug

its a religion, nothing more, nothing less.

If you’d listened to the scientists and the fire chiefs you’d know that changing climate conditions aren’t the ignition source but are exacerbating the fires. The season is now starting in winter, burning hotter, burning longer, burning in regions that previously weren’t at risk of bushfires and the number of safe days to perform controlled hazard reduction burns has decreased. You’d also know the wildfires in the northern hemisphere lasted far longer this season, meaning firefighting assets were tied up there for longer before arriving in Australia. (https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-14/former-fire-chief-calls-out-pm-over-refusal-of-meeting/11705330?pfmredir=sm).

[airdualbleedfault]

So cute when they talk about "historic" measurements of the past 10,20,30 or even 200 years in regards to a planet that's some 2 billion years old :rolleyes:

[B772]

Morno. If you are living in China you will be disappointed to hear China is adding 1171 new coal powered power stations to the 2363 coal powered power stations they already have. In Australia we are planning to shut down the remaining 6 coal powered power stations to save the world.

[dr dre]

Morno. If you are living in China you will be disappointed to hear China is adding 1171 new coal powered power stations to the 2363 coal powered power stations they already have. In Australia we are planning to shut down the remaining 6 coal powered power stations to save the world.

Well you are admitting that coal burning does have an effect on global temperatures. If that’s the case and it’s not going to stop better get used to negative effects on our economy and society. Agricultural impacts, Bushfires, Natural Disasters, Health, Infrastructure will all be affected.

Wonder which government will be the first to inevitably raise taxes to counter those effects?

[C441]

Wonder which government will be the first to inevitably raise taxes to counter those effects?
It will be the one that is happy to increase the upper income tax threshold as their votes lie with the 50%+ who currently pay no net tax and push that sector out to 60-odd% of all taxpayers.

[tio540]

But how do you know if that’s too much or not? Maybe 0.51% could mean catastrophic consequences.

Look, man made or not, it’s happening. The main thing now is what are we doing to adapt to the new norm?

And I can tell you now, living in one of the most polluted parts of the world, creating cleaner technologies and removing coal fired power stations will not only potentially improve the environments health, but it’ll certainly improve the health of billions of people!

If you are serious, stop flying aeroplanes, stop taking international holidays, stop drinking imported coffee, and sell your 350 hp Audi.

Only then, will you be taken serious that 0.05% carbon dioxide could be catastrophic.

[Capt Fathom]

If you are serious, stop flying aeroplanes, stop taking international holidays, stop drinking imported coffee, and sell your 350 hp Audi.

So who on here does any of that?

[Hydromet]

Yep, scientists gave the Wright Brothers all the data to build an aeroplane, And scientists said the world was flat, the earth was the centre of the universe, and that the world would warm 1.5 degrees if you leave an incandescent light on.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Wright brothers drew on, among other things, the work of Lawrence Hargrave, in particular papers he presented to the Royal Society on the shapes of wings. Priests said the world was flat and the earth was the centre of the universe and scientists proved them wrong, and your attempt at hyperbole is just as wrong.

[Peter Fanelli]

The scientific naivety of pilots constantly astounds me.

Aircraft fly because science works.

Aircraft and indeed spacecraft have evolved since first flight because scientists worked out how they work, and how to make them fly faster, higher and more efficiently using... I hate to say it... science.

Now that science says something that economists don’t want to hear, the pilots all go right wing and agree with the economists: scientists must be full of ****.... this can’t be right because it might affect my nice little world.
So until science became a thing the birds were walking?

[The name is Porter]

Lighten up, Choppa Reid's weather forecasts were pretty spot on.

[Hydromet]

So until science became a thing the birds were walking?
No, but pilots were.

[tio540]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Wright brothers drew on, among other things, the work of Lawrence Hargrave, in particular papers he presented to the Royal Society on the shapes of wings. Priests said the world was flat and the earth was the centre of the universe and scientists proved them wrong, and your attempt at hyperbole is just as wrong.

You forgot the lightbulb.

[601]

23 former heads of Fire and Emergency Services in Australia have been trying to meet with the PM all year to warn of the “new norm” in regards to bushfires in this country (hotter, longer, earlier, less capacity to perform Hazard Reduction Burns) and the need to adapt to it by vastly expanding firefighting capability to counter it. He’s refused to.

And by that we are to assume that the people now holding those positions, that these FORMER heads held, know nothing and are not advising or planning what is required before each fire season?

It is an insult to the people who were appointed to replace these FORMER heads upon their retirement/leaving.

[Peter Fanelli]

Want to know why people don't believe scientists anymore?

https://electroverse.net/uk-met-office-guilty-of-climate-fraud-says-leading-astrophysicist/?fbclid=IwAR0NycWMUfzS_OJ1MB6l1kmk9YoTlQsURBfY6MuATqifS0oBID uZR6MdOew

[morno]

Who do we believe? What's to say that article isn't bull**** either? Do we stop believing all sciences? Shall we get the church back to control the world again? Maybe put criminals back in the gallows and go to war in the Crusades again, ohh hang on we basically already do.

Like I said, natural or not, there is plenty of scientific evidence (You can't tell me thousands of scientists worldwide are all in on some sort of conspiracy, what have they got to gain from it? They're already getting money) that proves that severe weather is becoming more common and more severe. Now what are the powers that be doing about it?

Whether we have 6 power stations or 6,000, it's such an old technology and you can't tell me pumping that **** into the atmosphere is good for our health either. I'm certainly no environmental activist, but there's a reason why we don't use steam ships across the North Atlantic anymore, so why do we use the same technology to power our homes?

[B772]

dr dre. France is the first country to impose a climate tax on aviation to deter people from flying. Expect more soon. I understand the tax on a packet of cigarettes in Australia is now $35. I do not think this deters most smokers from continuing from smoking.

[pax britanica]

France can do that because long distance flying in France isnt really necessary due to their TGV network . State owned as is Af so govt don't really lose but can achieve something.

Climate change is one of those ' bet the farm issues'- the activists may be wrong but if they are not then the consequences are completely catastrophic. the fact that people like Trump say its wrong tends to suggest its probably right but expensive.

[Legoboyvdlp]

This is utter bollocks.

[Ladloy]

dr dre. France is the first country to impose a climate tax on aviation to deter people from flying. Expect more soon. I understand the tax on a packet of cigarettes in Australia is now $35. I do not think this deters most smokers from continuing from smoking.
Smoking rates are lower and lower every year. 15.5% in 2014 down from 26% in 2001

[PPRuNeUser0184]

Wow.....I didn’t realise so many climate change scientists are also professional pilots. All the experts here must be incredibly smart to be so highly qualified in two fields.

[Writer7]

Is there anywhere in the article linked to above where AD directly blames what scientists would call climate change (increased carbon in the atmosphere, greenhouse effect) for the change in prevailing winds in Sydney this year?

"This has been caused by two factors,” Mr David said. “One is the impact of climate change in the last four months. We have seen wind *velocities 34 per cent higher than the average of the last 30 years, and it’s a prevailing westerly *rather than the south-south-westerly we’ve seen in the past. That’s led to runway closures, meaning (aircraft) movements are slowed. Add that to the issues we face in Sydney and Melbourne in peak hours and that has led to a degradation in on-time performance.”

Hardly a beat up.

[Derfred]

We don't need to be climate scientists to take advice from climate scientists.

We just need to be capable of balancing our ideologies with our intelligence and common sense.

At the moment, climate science appears to interfere with the right wing ideologies of a free market, low regulation and low taxation, because most of the suggested solutions have involved increased regulation and/or taxation. So, surprise, surprise, most of the climate deniers are right wing. Do they really distrust the scientists, or is it just that they don't want to believe it.

So, no, I'm not a climate scientist, but if I want to know something about climate, I will ask a climate scientist, not a politician or radio shock jock.
I'm not an engineer either, but if there is something wrong with my aircraft, I will take advice from a professional aircraft engineer, not a politician or radio shock jock.

[tio540]

Wow.....I didn’t realise so many climate change scientists are also professional pilots. All the experts here must be incredibly smart to be so highly qualified in two fields.

Kiwi, cmon admit it, you Googled that.

[Derfred]

China vs Australia perspective:

China consumes around 3800 MT of coal per annum, at a population of 1.4 billion, that's 2.7 T per capita. Despite building more power stations, that consumption figure has been pretty stable since around 2011 as improvements in efficiencies have been implemented. China has been seeking to cap consumption at current levels, but doesn't expect any reduction until around 2040. They have been trialling certain forms of carbon trading. They'll start running out of coal around 2050.

Australia consumes around 125 MT of coal per annum, at a population of 25 million, that's 5.0 T per capita. That figure has reduced around 20% from its peak around 2006, as alternative electricity sources have been implemented. By the way, we have a lot more than 6 coal power stations. I believe the current figure is around 20.

Also note that Australia actually produces 4 times that amount (500 MT), but around 75% is exported, to countries like China. Adani will add another 60 MT to the exports.

For comparison, the USA consumes around 700 MT of coal per annum, at a population of 340 million, that's 2.1 per capita. That figure has reduced around 40% from its peak also around 2006.

(source: I've plucked these figures from various websites - mostly wikipedia)

So, per capita, we don't look so flash - and we don't even manufacture anything. At least China is using that electricity to make all the worldly possessions the rest of the world craves.

[truthinbeer]

Climate change is real as we all know the earth has been mainly warming for thousands of years, long before humans had any affect on the environment. Nothing we can do about the climate imo but we can do our bit to reduce pollution and the single greatest act we can do to reduce pollution by humans would be to reduce the world population. Way too many people.

Is anyone concerned about the rate at which magnetic North is changing? How can Al Gore make money out of this?

[Daddy Fantastic]

The scientific naivety of pilots constantly astounds me.

Aircraft fly because science works.

Aircraft and indeed spacecraft have evolved since first flight because scientists worked out how they work, and how to make them fly faster, higher and more efficiently using... I hate to say it... science.

Now that science says something that economists don’t want to hear, the pilots all go right wing and agree with the economists: scientists must be full of ****.... this can’t be right because it might affect my nice little world.


One little problem with that theory of yours, its just a theory.

Produce the definitive study that proves man made Global warming or Climate Change {as it is called these days} beyond a reasonable doubt.....oh look at that...no proof...Hmmmmm!!!

10 years ago all those LEFT WING scientists were caught fudging the figures of MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING which was completely debunked, hence CLIMATE CHANGE these days yet not a shred of evidence besides that fantastic well respected Qantas theory which must prove it of course!!

Nobody denies the worlds climate changes over the centuries with various temperature fluctuations and has cycles but going all GRETA THUNBERG on us and claiming its MAN MADE is a touch much dont you think!!

Thats what this whole argument is about, LEFTIES claiming climate change is all man made....get a grip!!!

[Lookleft]

Also note that Australia actually produces 4 times that amount (500 MT), but around 75% is exported, to countries like China. Adani will add another 60 MT to the exports.
and India but under all the climate change agreements "developing countries" have been given permission to generate as much electricity as they want so their living standards can catch up with the rest. Its a pity that they don't change the definition of a developed country to one that has a space program because then Australia can be classified as a developing country and then we can get cheap electricity again.

So, per capita, we don't look so flash - and we don't even manufacture anything. The per capita statisitic is such a furphy as the reality is Australia generates very little of the worlds total CO2, which after all is the problem, from what I keep getting rammed down my throat. If the science is so sound how come 10 years ago they didn't predict that the climate emergency would exist in 2019? For much the same reason they can't predict TS over Sydney on a humid day, its all driven by computer modelling, which is only as reliable as the assumptions built into it.

[dr dre]

One little problem with that theory of yours, its just a theory.

Produce the definitive study that proves man made Global warming or Climate Change {as it is called these days} beyond a reasonable doubt.....oh look at that...no proof...Hmmmmm!!!

10 years ago all those LEFT WING scientists were caught fudging the figures of MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING which was completely debunked, hence CLIMATE CHANGE these days yet not a shred of evidence besides that fantastic well respected Qantas theory which must prove it of course!!

Nobody denies the worlds climate changes over the centuries with various temperature fluctuations and has cycles but going all GRETA THUNBERG on us and claiming its MAN MADE is a touch much dont you think!!

Thats what this whole argument is about, LEFTIES claiming climate change is all man made....get a grip!!!

Please provide links to verified studies (not blog posts) for your claims:

“MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING which was completely debunked”

“claiming its MAN MADE is a touch much dont you think”

Here’s some studies and info for you to read:

The 97% consensus on global warming (https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm)

The Causes of Climate Change (https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/)

Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)

[EastofKoksy]

From today’s newspaper. A Qantas executive suggests the higher cancellation rate is due climate change.

​​​​​​​

At least he didn't try to blame Brexit which is the standard management excuse in the UK.

[Mk 1]

So cute when they talk about "historic" measurements of the past 10,20,30 or even 200 years in regards to a planet that's some 2 billion years old :rolleyes:
No, the "historic" measurements you refer to are confirmed from Ice cores that go back nearly a million years.

[Derfred]

The per capita statisitic is such a furphy as the reality is Australia generates very little of the worlds total CO2, which after all is the problem,

In terms of implementing a solution, the per capita statistic is valid, because the solution needs to come from government. Therefore it must be political. There will be a short-term cost, that will ultimately be borne by citizens.

How can the world persuade China (which contributes 25% of emissions) to improve their game, when they can just point at Australia and say that we are worse than they are?

[Mk 1]

... If the science is so sound how come 10 years ago they didn't predict that the climate emergency would exist in 2019? .

The whistle was blown on anthropogenic climate change in the late 1960's and definitely in the 1970's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science

[Lookleft]

The whistle was blown on anthropogenic climate change in the late 1960's and definitely in the 1970's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...change_science But they gave us until the end of the 21st century, then it was 2050 now its 2030. So if the science is so sound why wasn't 2030 always nominated as crunch time?

In terms of implementing a solution, the per capita statistic is valid, because the solution needs to come from government. Therefore it must be political. There will be a short-term cost, that will ultimately be borne by citizens. How can the world persuade China (which contributes 25% of emissions) to improve their game, when they can just point at Australia and say that we are worse than they are?

If we are a minnow economically and a micro organism military why does it matter what our emissions are which from an actual physical amount basis is miniscule? If we want to reduce our per capita emissions then we just allow more immigration. It is a BS statistic.

[Asturias56]

Dates are all to do with what you think you can get away with .............. 1C, 2C, 3C.......

The planet is warming naturally, the rate of warming has increased due to industrialisation since 1700 and TBH there isn't much we can do about it medium term. The sea levels WILL rise, deserts will spread and the ice cap will shrink. But then again much of Canada and Russia will be available for crops and settlement.

It means vast movements of population - and don't think they can be stopped

I don't think buying an electric car will make any difference whatsoever

[Ian W]

Christ almighty! Would be cheaper to build every airport world wide as all over fields than to try and change what's been going on since the the planet was formed!
I bet the other Airlines CEO's (better known as Cash Extraction Officers) are kicking themselves they didn't get in on the Climate Change fairy tale!

There are other alternatives.... the circular runway project (https://www.internationalairportreview.com/article/33509/circular-runways-exclusive/)

[Asturias56]

Struck me that Australia will look like the Gulf today, New Zealand will look like Australia now and the UK (whats still above water) will be like Spain

[Rocchi]

"and the UK (whats still above water) will be like Spain." Lovely, Scotland with a Mediterranean climate, great thing, cannae wait. And funny thing here, we have climate change twice a year. Just now we are going in to a cold period. If the climate changes more than that I will start to worry.
Can't help feeling there is too much propaganda in all this climate debate.

[Asturias56]

No - it's happening Rocchi - check out the science. Scotland was covered in several hundred meters of ice a couple of million years back https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/geologyOfBritain/iceAge/home.html - its warmed up a little since then.

The media coverage is all generated about who to blame, who can profit and who gets shafted

[dr dre]

I didn't realise so many pilots were qualified climate scientists, who knew?

I’m not a qualified climate scientist....

But I’ll post a few links to some scientists who can debunk some of the nonsense written by some posters here. For instance here are 200 international scientific bodies (including the Australian Academy of Science, BoM, CSIRO and Australian Meterological and Oceanographic Society) who have concluded the global climate is changing and is human induced:

The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action (http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html)

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming (https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm)

[dr dre]

Not in response to you, Dre. I'll take my climate science facts from peer reviewed papers and not some old geezers on pprune who think they are climate science experts because they have spent 50 years reading TAF's and flying around the outback.

They don’t think they’re experts because they can read a TAF.

They think they’re experts because the media they consume tells them that all the climate scientists are liars and it’s all a big conspiracy.

It doesn’t matter how many factual peer reviewed studies you present at the end of the day it’s just a big con that all scientists have bought into and all the data is fake anyway.

[Lookleft]

They think they’re experts because the media they consume tells them that all the climate scientists are liars and it’s all a big conspiracy.

Really? Media like the ABC who are definitely pro climate change emergency.

I’m not a qualified climate scientist....

Neither is Ross Garnaut, he's an economist yet he is considered an expert, neither is Tim Flannary, he is a paleontologist yet he is considered an expert, neither Sir David (he's the new Messiah) Attenborough, he is a television presenter yet he is considered an expert. The reason the "geezers" push back against this stuff is that they have seen it before. Acid rain "roone they cried!", "nuclear winter "roone they cried!" and the best one of all Y2K "roone they cried!" including all the worlds "experts" and especially the UN. Because the time frame hasn't got the population agitated enough it has had to be declared as a climate emergency so that radical groups like Extinction Rebellion can carry on like anarchists of old and disrupt everyday life in the "name of the climate".

BTW the ABC had an article on their website about the BoM discovery of SSW over Antarctica. The BoM were very careful to state that it wasn't linked to climate change. You might find that the science might start toning down the rhetoric in the coming years.

[str12]

I flew a 747 in MS Flight sim, was a piece of piss so I can therefore fly anything. Anyone got any questions on Commercial aviation just ask me. I may not be trained, qualified or any form of aviation expert but I have an opinion and will argue the toss with any commercial, military or private pilot.

Signed,

Clime Ate Scientist

[dr dre]

Really? Media like the ABC who are definitely pro climate change emergency.


Or just pro “saying what the scientists say”.

Neither is Ross Garnaut, he's an economist yet he is considered an expert, neither is Tim Flannary, he is a paleontologist yet he is considered an expert, neither Sir David (he's the new Messiah) Attenborough, he is a television presenter yet he is considered an expert.

Theyre considered experts because they are repeating what actual climate scientists say. Deniers praise morons like Andrew Bolt or Alan Jones as truth tellers on climate.

and the best one of all Y2K "roone they cried!" including all the worlds "experts" and especially the UN.

Actually Y2K was barely a problem because intelligent people listened to what experts in the field were saying, and on a global scale took measures to prevent bad things from occurring. Sort of how people need to listen to what scientists are saying now.


BTW the ABC had an article on their website about the BoM discovery of SSW over Antarctica. The BoM were very careful to state that it wasn't linked to climate change. You might find that the science might start toning down the rhetoric in the coming years.

Maybe it wasn’t? The BoM is composed of scientists. After looking at the data and evidence and using their years of expertise they came to their conclusion that this one event isn’t linked to AGW. But the BoM does hold the solid position that human beings are affecting the climate in a negative way. That science won’t change. In the scientific community that position is now as solid as belief in a spherical earth despite all the deniers saying that a debate still exists amongst the community. There isn’t.

The only debate that exists is if negative effects of the change can be stopped. Some scientists think it’s inevitable and unchangeable now. But there are zero credible scientists who will back up the views espoused by the very loud climate denial lobby.

[dr dre]

I flew a 747 in MS Flight sim, was a piece of piss so I can therefore fly anything. Anyone got any questions on Commercial aviation just ask me. I may not be trained, qualified or any form of aviation expert but I have an opinion and will argue the toss with any commercial, military or private pilot.

Signed,

Clime Ate Scientist

Too true. Have a conversation with any credible expert at any science organisation or school in this country. They view climate deniers like pilots view chemtrail morons.

[Vag277]

11,000 "scientists" signing something in support is as relevant as 11,000 catholics supporting the infallibility of the pope. Both meaningless. See here for the list of signatories. https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/bioscience/PAP/10.1093_biosci_biz088/3/biz088_supplemental_file_s1.pdf?Expires=1577686153&Signature=ATumIyJUgwV2njgJa-ESbT2wI20r0x9nM3w8-eKRAwLO0rkYYFrM-JDia-t4jZqN9t0KHSnwftomaZ4fo5taO-lBMHjokKC54pX9masr9uW48KL-tuMFCiCtwSzBxBSX6VGnhOLJGyV5Hx-ONgeBwmSYnDXznrg0OGkGhop9ChnG2Yt5bafC6UQh8bStVJ9X-IYp98eGl~GAmevzZ~z1yHJLX6MMHxEYyYuz8dDxVbYHKG00hv5WuEyo-f9uteHOaz~wJAaMa8cUldGUGWB8vsT1HwQpMvBgWX~2ZErMAIEJCnCw~tDPS yUtySHz57LiZUK-N~OQZfcndBbkJHG8Hg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA

[dr dre]

11,000 "scientists" signing something in support is as relevant as 11,000 catholics supporting the infallibility of the pope. Both meaningless.

I’m more referring to the over 12,000 peer reviewed studies that confirm the fact that climate change is caused by humans:

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature (https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html)

[Rated De]

I’m more referring to the over 12,000 peer review studies that confirm the fact that climate change is caused by humans:

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature (https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html)

The hapless Mr Andrew David is neither interested in climate science, nor much a reader.
He was interested in deflecting away attention from a cancellation rate that is beginning to impact his self enrichment "bonus" enshrined in OTP.

[Lookleft]

Too true. Have a conversation with any credible expert at any science organisation or school in this country.

By your own admission to be a credible expert Theyre considered experts because they are repeating what actual climate scientists say. all you have to do is repeat what climate scientists say! So if I want to be considered an expert I should start a group called "Pilots for Climate Change Action" and squarwk like a parrot on the subject. Then I can start a Go-Fund Me campaign to help me spread the message that a group of concerned pilots want action on the climate emergency. While I am at it I might as well start an Instragram page so that I can be a climate emergency influencer. Oh yeah I can probably stop being a pilot because all my followers can fund my new lifestyle.

The climate change argument is more about economics than emergency. From modelling and forecasting to changing the way money can be made from one business model to a new business model. There is a reason a sizable part of the population is sceptical.

[dr dre]

By your own admission to be a credible expert

Never have, just directing you to where credible scientists have published their findings so you can read them yourself.

The climate change argument is more about economics than emergency. From modelling and forecasting to changing the way money can be made from one business model to a new business model. There is a reason a sizable part of the population is sceptical.

No, it’s about the science of how human activity is changing the global climate. The money argument is seperate. Read some of the links I’ve posted to the research conducted by credible scientific organisations and get back to me.

[dr dre]

The hapless Mr Andrew David is neither interested in climate science, nor much a reader.
He was interested in deflecting away attention from a cancellation rate that is beginning to impact his self enrichment "bonus" enshrined in OTP.

You can make that argument. But it is a fact that the prevailing westerlies have been stronger and more frequent this year in YSSY and that has necessitated the use of R25 more often, slowing the flow rate. Any discussion around that fact and how to mitigate it (increased use of 16/34 in crosswinds, curfew dispensations, speeding up building the second airport) got very quickly drowned out by the usual “it’s all a hoax” deniers who appear on any thread where the words climate change are mentioned.

[Lookleft]

But it is a fact that the prevailing westerlies have been stronger and more frequent this year in YSSY and that has necessitated the use of R25 more often, slowing the flow rate.

So from the one fact you are extrapolating that it is a result of climate change. Or the fact of stronger and more frequent westerlies could be attributed to an aberration in the mean strength and occurrence over the period in which wind speed at Sydney Airport has been kept. Thats the problem with the science of climate. It takes short term data points, plots them on a graph and looks forward in time to a point it thinks it will keep going to. Reminds me a lot of Alan Kohlers economic graphs. Yet economic downturns always seem to take the economists by surprise.

[dr dre]

So from the one fact you are extrapolating that it is a result of climate change.

Actually I haven’t.

If you go back to the first post on this thread I made I pointed out that AD himself in the article posted doesn’t specifically provide a quote to link the increased westerlies to climate change, yet the headlines shouted that he did. As the thread went along it brought out the typical “it’s all a hoax” deniers so I simply posted links to scientific evidence from organisations like NASA to counter those statements.

[Lookleft]

This is from the SBS website:
Qantas executive says flight delays caused by climate change hardly a right wing conspiracy station. So is SBS lying, deliberately distorting the truth to fit in with their climate change emergency agenda? You cannot have it both ways in claiming its the right wing media outlets doing a beat up and claiming that all the other media outlets are just quoting the scientists. Your words: Or just pro “saying what the scientists say”..

This is why people are sceptical. There is no consistency in your argument other than, the sky is falling. Like I have stated before, people of a certain age group have heard it all before about the imminent end of life as we know it. So let me make a couple of assumptions. You were born late 80's, grew up in the 90's and learnt to fly in the noughties (I am assuming you are a pilot, if you are not then I acknowledge that I am wasting my time). You missed the hysteria over acid rain Y2K and were aware of Sept 11 on the periphery. It is not your fault that this is the first "global crisis" that you are aware of as an adult but don't go around calling people morons because they don't share your point of view.

[TimmyTee]

Lookleft says it’s all just another scare campaign as he’s seen it all before. Therefore must be.

[Ascend Charlie]

Don't forget that the hole in the Aerozone layer during the 80s caused easterlies and blew all the kiwis over here.

[Lookleft]

Thanks AC I forgot about the hole in the ozone layer. No TT I am only talking about my experience, an experience which resonates with a lot of people I talk to, but an experience which shapes my view of the hysteria that surrounds the climate emergency narrative. If I was to state that my viewpoint is the only one that matters and that all other viewpoints are postulated by morons and deniers then you would have a valid point.

[Rated De]

What the hapless, Andrew David hoped has been achieved: A throw away line to non curious journalists is accepted as the reason for declining OTP.
OTP is keenly watched as he benefits handsomely from it (not that he has any impact at all).

It might well be that crewing issues, maintenance related cancellations or any other myriad of management induced stupidity from Fort Fumble are actually responsible for the OTP decline.

Andrew David spends endless days bumbling around Fort Fumble looking for the famed scapegoat.
Climate change will do...

[Daddy Fantastic]

Please provide links to verified studies (not blog posts) for your claims:

“MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING which was completely debunked”

“claiming its MAN MADE is a touch much dont you think”

Here’s some studies and info for you to read:

The 97% consensus on global warming (https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm)

The Causes of Climate Change (https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/)

Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)


Those are not actual studies completed under the scientific standard of being able to prove or disprove a theory. They are just articles. Show me the actual studies/papers where if you were to walk into a court of law you could say under oath that 'MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE' has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

You cant because it does not exist. Where did the 97% figure come from, plucked out of thin air no doubt. When you can produce the actual studies that have proven this you can claim it to be true, until then it is just wild guessing...

Remember the claim of all of this is the climate is changing due to 'MAN MADE' activities, not natural cycles occuring which nobody disagrees with.

All those scientists that claim man has changed the climate have merely put forward their theories but not one has definitively proven anything!!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I’m more referring to the over 12,000 peer reviewed studies that confirm the fact that climate change is caused by humans:

Hardly likely to get a balanced result when the below assumption is used

frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming.

So while there is no actual empirical measurable proof that we are causing climate change, it doesn't matter because they all know we are.

[Daddy Fantastic]

I didn't realise so many pilots were also qualified climate scientists, who knew?

You mean like 16 year old GRETA THUNBERG and all her worldly knowledge and life experience.....got it!!

[Daddy Fantastic]

You can make that argument. But it is a fact that the prevailing westerlies have been stronger and more frequent this year in YSSY and that has necessitated the use of R25 more often, slowing the flow rate. Any discussion around that fact and how to mitigate it (increased use of 16/34 in crosswinds, curfew dispensations, speeding up building the second airport) got very quickly drowned out by the usual “it’s all a hoax” deniers who appear on any thread where the words climate change are mentioned.

So using the argument above or facts above that you have posted please explain how this is MAN MADE....as this in essence s the whole argument. MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE has somehow shifted the winds around Sydney...

You wonder why most of us think it is a HOAX, accept for all the LEFTIES as usual!!

Look at EXTINCTION REBELLION or whatever they are called, if you take those people seriously you need your head read!

[Derfred]

So while there is no actual empirical measurable proof that we are causing climate change, it doesn't matter because they all know we are.

Proof? Maybe not.

But evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? Definitely.

It can be proven in a back yard experiment that increased CO2 in air retains more re-radiated heat than air. As can be proven, methane and water vapour.

It can be proven that global CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased significantly (and almost linearly) since they started measuring it in the 1950’s in Hawaii.

It can be proven that humans have been the cause of a massive increase in CO2 emissions (and methane) in recent times through the enormous consumption of fossil fuels, deforestation and farming.

You actually don’t need to be a climate scientist to understand the above. Where it gets difficult is working out whether the above will have sufficient impact on the climate to be of major concern.

If the scientists say “yes” then we need to act. How much do we need to change our ways, and how much are we prepared to pay? That’s when economics gets involved and thats where it gets political.

It is affecting the climate, that is beyond reasonable doubt. What to do and how quickly? That’s politics, and that’s when the people with money to make in the short term don’t want to know about it. And one of those people owns at least half the media in this country. And that affects politics.

[dr dre]

Those are not actual studies completed under the scientific standard of being able to prove or disprove a theory. They are just articles. Show me the actual studies/papers

You cant because it does not exist. Where did the 97% figure come from, plucked out of thin air no doubt.

All those scientists that claim man has changed the climate have merely put forward their theories but not one has definitively proven anything!!

Everyone one of those quotes can be disproven from a link I’ve posted. The studies referred to are contained in those links. Look harder.

[dr dre]

You wonder why most of us think it is a HOAX, accept for all the LEFTIES as usual!!


Nope.

Lowy Institue Poll this year:

Climate Change (https://lowyinstitutepoll.lowyinstitute.org/themes/climate-change-and-energy/)

As you can see from the first graph 61% of Australians believe climate change is a significant threat and should be addressed with the highest concern, 28% believe Climate change is a real problem but can be addressed over time and only 10% believe climate change has not been proven.

That 89% who believe climate change is real, 10% who don’t.

So do you need me to explain what the word “most” as in “most of us think it’s a hoax” really means?

[TimmyTee]

That’s a lot of green voters Dre!

[Asturias56]

As in "most of the people in my Golf Club..."

[Derfred]

Atmospheric CO2 since measurements started in 1958:


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1382x1057/026f0bb5_19c3_4710_bb5a_1b6cee66ea09_35a2bf0bf3c474c6772d958 c3be91c806cc34399.jpeg
Fossil fuel consumption:


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1515x1074/573aab3e_61ef_4902_a1d4_5ad6a740e199_cb7877f23dbdab9db56e594 231b7b752057bc716.jpeg

Now, whilst the above two charts don’t “prove” anything, the correlation is sufficient to be worthy of further research, maybe?

But we are pilots, right?

You know, like if I plotted my mixture levels against cylinder head temperature, and saw a correlation, I might conclude that cylinder head temperatures might have something to do with my mixture levels.

But if the Bolt Report says that anyone suggesting that mixture levels have anything to do with CHT is a socialist tree-hugging drug-addict on welfare full of leftist scientific crap, then...

[Lookleft]

Whats that phrase."correlation does not equal causation".

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Correlations are definitely worthy of further investigation.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/436x337/bca082c2_09b7_4a28_a1f7_fab67cf366ad_896b79c2c177582acd3fead ec3895d9fd37f8741.png

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

More seriously, this might be worth a read: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/#13263e8212d6

The title of the link is quite misleading, as the article doesn’t claim that ‘everything they say about climate change is wrong’ at all. I haven’t had a chance to try and fact-check it or look into the bona fides of the author, but at face value it seems like a reasonably balanced take by someone who is a long way from being a ‘denier’.

[Derfred]

Ok, I’m just trying to entertain the possibility that some here might see the correlation and do further research, rather than regurgitating the garbage.

Of course correlation doesn’t equal causation, but sometimes correlation encourages one to do further research. Sometimes with a mission to prove it, sometimes with a mission to disprove it, or for a scientist, with a mission to discover, without prejudice.

[Lookleft]

With idiots like this in the world sometimes it amazes me that we managed to get this far at all. I guess the difference is that the internet wasn't around back then, so these morons couldn't voice their uninformed opinion to a large audience.

No the idiots and morons are the ones who look at those charts and decide that the world is going to end in 2030 and that 14 year old Swedish schoolgirls have more insight into the worlds problems than those who have inhabited the planet a little bit longer. Which type of moron are you?

[bolthead]

I'm not interested in backyard experiments. If someone can point to a link to an experiment where someone might have spent $100,000 out of the many billions of dollars already spent, demonstrating each greenhouse gas. Is water vapour worse than CO2? Is the average water vapour content a lot more than 420 ppm? If so, why don't we have runaway global warming due to water vapour?
Warning. These sorts of questions usually brings these types of threads to a shuddering halt.

[dr dre]

Warning. These sorts of questions usually brings these types of threads to a shuddering halt.

Not really:

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works (https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm)

[601]

With the majority in Oz accepting climate change a lot of us see the need to change from carbon based power to renewables. In include those who have installed PVs etc to foster that change. Even though the Govt is accused of not having a "policy" there seem to be an heck of a lot of renewables entering the supply with a lot more in the pipeline.

There is one thing wrong with the install renewable at any cost approach. No one is investing in large scale storage of renewable power.

What should be occurring is that the carbon based power generators be issued with a licence that covers the amount of power their present day generators produce.

Take a large 2000MW coal generator. The operator is issued with a licence to produce that 2000MW 24/7. When the operator decides that the generator is no longer financial and elects to replace it, the licence will have a provision that the retired generator shall be replaced with renewables (Solar/Wind) of sufficient generating capacity and storage to produce 2000MW power 24/7. Not 200MW of installed renewable, but sufficient generating capacity and storage capacity to produce the amount of power 24/7. It would therefore be a "baseload" generator.

This would prevent an operator replacing a retired generator with a gas powered plant that would only come on stream when the market is high which keeps power prices high.

The way the renewable are progressing at present, we will end up with no coal generators but with excess of power from solar and wind with absolutely no reliability.

I only have to look at the output from my domestic solar system to see how unreliable solar is without storage.

Weather this will make a difference to the wind direction at SY, I have no idea.

[Asturias56]

Always amazes me that so few people in Australia have solar panels on their roofs - the take-up looks similar to NW Europe

[De_flieger]

It's bizarre, Lookleft, that you refer to your experiences of hearing about the hole in the ozone layer and the Y2K bug as reasons you think you should ignore experts working in the field and treat climate science as an overblown hysterical scam. In both those cases large numbers of experts working in the field gave their advice, just as climate scientists are doing now, and based on that action was taken to resolve them with widespread public action and laws. The hole in the ozone layer is shrinking now because regulators, governments and the general public listened to the scientists and meteorologists working in the field, and laws were changed to virtually eliminate the production and use of CFCs that depleted the ozone layer. Result - a diminishing hole in the ozone layer, that is recovering gradually. Regarding the Y2K bug, a significant number of IT experts put in vast amounts of time and effort to prepare legacy systems for the Y2K issues, so at the turn of the century there were minimal impacts - again, action based on the recommendations of large numbers of highly qualified experts in the field. Just because it wasn't visible within your personal experience doesn't mean it didn't occur.

How many of the active pilots here would be happy to have an atmospheric physicist with no aviation experience wander into their flight deck and explain how the pilots are getting everything wrong based on the physicist having read some blogs and listened to some radio commentators? But when the reverse is happening, there's a few people who claim to be pilots here who love to explain to the experts how they are getting everything wrong in climate science, based on having no formal qualifications in the field but reading a few websites and listening to a few radio hosts.

Whether that has anything to do with on time performance at Sydney is another thing entirely...there are plenty of other things I can think of to improve that particular bottleneck in Australia's aviation infrastructure, but it can certainly be a useful distraction for an airline executive who has his bonuses linked to on time performance.

[Asturias56]

"and storage to produce 2000MW power 24/7. "

That sin't going to cheap - nor is it going to good for parts of the planet where you mine things like Lithium

[De_flieger]

I'm not interested in backyard experiments. If someone can point to a link to an experiment where someone might have spent $100,000 out of the many billions of dollars already spent, demonstrating each greenhouse gas. Is water vapour worse than CO2? Is the average water vapour content a lot more than 420 ppm? If so, why don't we have runaway global warming due to water vapour?
Warning. These sorts of questions usually brings these types of threads to a shuddering halt.

NASA has spent a fair bit more than $100,000 on instruments on satellites over many years, that measure water vapour through various levels of the atmosphere and working out some of the answers to these questions. Here's a couple of resources, some of them a few years old but still relevant. Water vapour isn't something that is unheard of, or not considered by atmospheric scientists.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

[TimmyTee]

Waiting for Lookleft to return and bang on some more about a 16 year old girl. You're a big man continually targeting a single teenager who never claimed to be an expert.

[dr dre]

Waiting for Lookleft to return and bang on some more about a 16 year old girl. You're a big man continually targeting a single teenager who never claimed to be an expert.

They target a 16 year old girl because it’s easier than targeting hundreds of thousands of scientists who have spent decades researching this topic and have come to an undeniable conclusion. All that 16 year old girl is saying is basically “listen to the scientists”.

[layman]

De_flieger

+1 about Y2K. 19 years on and the ‘flat-earthers’ still don’t understand how much work went into making Y2K a non-event.

Those (most of us?) trying to educate people to the negative impacts of global-warming still have a lot work ahead!

[bolthead]

Yipee! More ozone. Another greenhouse gas. Is it true ( Wiki ) that with no greenhouse gases, the ISA temp would be -18C?

[Asturias56]

"+1 about Y2K. 19 years on and the ‘flat-earthers’ still don’t understand how much work went into making Y2K a non-event."

I heard that several VERY large organisations had problems but as they were so few they just kept very, very quiet out of embarrassment.

[porch monkey]

**** me, what a surprise. Another climate change thread.

[dr dre]

Yipee! More ozone. Another greenhouse gas. Is it true ( Wiki ) that with no greenhouse gases, the ISA temp would be -18C?

Nope, try again bolthead (not named after your uncle Andrew, huh?):

Ozone stops declining while climate warms (https://skepticalscience.com/ozone-layer-global-warming.htm)

[mjohansen]

They target a 16 year old girl because it’s easier than targeting hundreds of thousands of scientists who have spent decades researching this topic and have come to an undeniable conclusion. All that 16 year old girl is saying is basically “listen to the scientists”.
Thousands of scientists? Really? How many of them are real climate scientists working with climate dynamics?

[HabuHunter]

Dr Dre, you keep quoting the sceptical science website. That site is run by a climate alarmist by the name of John Cook, a Brisbane based cartoonist. Even the name “Skeptical science” is fraudulent, it is anything but.
If you are relying on this website for information you won’t get a balanced view of the debate.
You need to dig a little deeper.

[Willie Nelson]

De_flieger

+1 about Y2K. 19 years on and the ‘flat-earthers’ still don’t understand how much work went into making Y2K a non-event.

Those (most of us?) trying to educate people to the negative impacts of global-warming still have a lot work ahead!





That’s precisely right! The bull$hit arguments about Y2K all being a storm in a teacup presuppose that nothing can be a problem in the future until it has been proven to a problem with the benefit of hindsight. Therefore by implication, nothing that we are cautioned about whether it be IT systems failures or warnings from NASA, International Academy of Sciences, NOAA, BOM, CSIRO..............etc are worth anything until history clearly proves them to have been correct....in hindsight.

Some of us are willing to accept the infinitesimally small chance that the handful of scientists that the Murdoch press can dig up with the help of funding from the Minerals Council of Australia and the BCA may be on the right side of history.

Nobody seems to have been able to articulate who the beneficiaries of the UN conspiracy would be. Pauline Hanson has suggested that scientists want more money for research funding. Surely, if that were the case they’d be better off requesting funding for research the incumbent government believes in given that so much is federally funded. It’s not like said scientists couldn’t find something else to invest there’ time in that were politically aligned with Scomo.

I can can certainly see why some of us living in western democracies are blind to the immediate ill effects of climate change and let’s be clear, none of us, myself included are without blame but that too is irrelevant to whether or not there is objective cause for concern. If the bulk of scientists are right and I believe that they are then you will also recognise that the problem of global warming passes a tipping point beyond which reversal become impractical.

I dont want want to change my lifestyle anymore than the next man woman or child but I need to look my kids in the eye and say that I took all reasonable steps to listen to those wiser than me and take heed of their concerns. The cost is significant but the loss of personal integrity is also pretty significant too.

Oh yeah, it just occurred to me that the last line I wrote looks suspiciously like virtue signalling, yep, that’s probably right. It would be a good thing if we all made an effort to be seen to be doing the right thing and actually doing the right thing too.

[neville_nobody]

I don't have a dog in this fight, however I am suspicious of the whole climate change agenda as the current solutions seem to be more about breaking economies than actually fixing anything. That said regardless of the validity of the science, if this starts catching on there will be no Aviation industry at all, which means we all will be out of a job and society will have a much lower standard of living than it once had. High Speed Trains and Bio Fuel are certainly not the solution.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/these-people-say-they-ll-never-fly-again-so-just-how-bad-is-flying-for-the-environment-20191112-p539xr.html

Anna Harvey has accepted that she might never see New Caledonia's coral reefs or many of the other destinations on her travel "bucket list".But the 29-year-old from Sydney does not regret joining a small and growing number of global citizens who have decided to stop flying – for holidays or any other reason – because of air travel's contribution to climate change.For Harvey, the turning point came about a year ago with the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report on global warming of 1.5 degrees, which detailed the drastic reduction in emissions required to avert the most damaging effects of a hotter planet.Mark Carter, a semi-retired graphic designer from Melbourne, hasn't flown internationally for 12 years, and says he won't again."In that sense, it’s a sacrifice but I just can’t get the uncompromised science out of my head that really we’re in this emergency," says Carter, who has also founded the group Flight Free Australia.A global backlash against air travel has emerged over the past year, particularly in Europe, where flygskam – Swedish for "flight shame" (https://www.smh.com.au/link/follow-20170101-p51v3w) – has taken hold and seen people avoid flying where possible.







Airlines say they're doing everything they can to reduce their impact on the environment but some people remain convinced that flying less, or not at all, is the only reasonable response.So just how bad is flying for the environment? What's being done about it? And is it possible to fly "carbon neutral" or is that, as one expert says, just a furphy?







What effect does flying have on the environment?

Aviation contributes about 2 per cent of the world's carbon emissions but that will double or possibly triple by 2050 as flying becomes an option for a growing middle class in Asia, according to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the United Nation's aviation body.In Australia, domestic flights (which is all that is counted in the goverment's National Greenhouse Accounts) made up 1.6 per cent of our total emissions in 2017. However, when international flights are included, emissions increase to represent 3.8 per cent of Australia's total.While that's a significant number, it comes in well behind our biggest polluters – electricity and heat production (32 per cent of the total), road transport (14 per cent), and methane produced by farm animals (8.7 per cent), according to the 2017 National Greenhouse Accounts (https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/29eca947-af49-4ed1-8369-e68d74730cf9/files/national-inventory-report-2017-volume-1.pdf).







One person flying economy class return from Sydney to London via Singapore will produce 1.74 tonnes of CO2, according to the ICAO. That represents 8 per cent of Australia's per capita emissions in the year to March 2019 (21.4 tonnes per person).Having a spacious business-class cabin makes a plane far less fuel-efficient on a per-passenger basis. Because of that, flying business class doubles your carbon footprint for that journey, according to ICAO.On top of carbon emissions, scientists are paying more attention to contrails – the white streaks of water vapor that freeze around exhaust fumes and trail behind planes as they fly through the sky. Researchers from the German Aerospace Center have concluded that contrails can trap heat in the atmosphere, and could have a bigger impact on global warming than the carbon aviation produces.







What are the airlines doing about it?

The world's major airlines have pledged to stop growing their net carbon emissions from next year and, by 2050, to have cut the industry's net emissions to half its 2005 level.Qantas became the world's second airline to go beyond this target in early November, joining British Airways, Aer Lingus and Iberia (which are all owned by the same company) in promising to hit zero net emissions by 2050.







Airlines say they will reach these targets by flying newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft. Improving fuel efficiency means that per-passenger emissions on every flight have already halved since 1990.They also hope to develop jet fuel derived from non-petroleum sources, called biofuel, which can be up to 80 per cent less polluting than regular fuel. The balance of their carbon emissions will be "offset".What does carbon offsetting actually mean?

When you tick the "fly carbon neutral" box while booking a ticket, you agree to make a donation on top of the price of your fare – from a couple of dollars on a Melbourne-to-Sydney flight, up to about $50 on a return trip to London – that goes to environmental projects designed to mitigate the carbon impact of your journey. As of November, Qantas is matching this donation dollar for dollar.Those certified projects work by either pulling carbon out of the atmosphere – by planting trees for example, which suck up carbon as they grow – or by preventing more carbon from being released.The carbon "credit" is meant to balance out the carbon emitted from your flight so that you, theoretically, fly "carbon neutral".Qantas' current offsetting projects include restoring wetlands and rainforest in far north Queensland, conserving Tasmanian forest that might otherwise be logged, and funding work in the North Kimberley that reduces the chance of wildfires, which spew large amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. The airline also buys "carbon credits" from solar, wind and biogas projects.



Schemes by Virgin and its budget arm, Tigerair, include protecting Tasmanian forest and preventing wild fires in Arnhem Land.Virgin passengers paid to offset 27,406 tonnes of CO2 in 2018 through its offsetting scheme – or 0.74 per cent of its 3.6 million tonnes of net emissions, according to its National Carbon Offset Standard disclosure (https://www.virginaustralia.com/cs/groups/internetcontent/@wc/documents/webcontent/~edisp/ncos-public-disclosure-2018.pdf).Qantas passengers paid to offset 133,242 tonnes of carbon through its schemes in 2018, or about 1.1 per cent of the airline's net emissions. With its dollar-for-dollar matching, the scheme will effectively double in size.

Are all offset projects good for the planet?

The merits of offsetting schemes are debated by scientists.Professor Will Steffen, a researcher at the Australian National University and a Climate Council councillor, says that one of the most common methods of offsetting – growing or preserving trees – is scientifically flawed, and the promise you are flying carbon natural by funding these schemes is a "furphy".

“I would say that they’re worse than [doing] nothing because it takes some of the heat off the real problem," he says.The problem, Professor Steffen says, is that trees grown in the ground or protected today are part of the "active" carbon cycle – they absorb carbon when they grow, and that returns to the atmosphere if they fall down and decay, or are burnt.Related Article

[img]https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.18385416666666665%2C$multiply_0.2842%2C$ratio_1.7768 46%2C$width_1059%2C$x_0%2C$y_108/t_crop_custom/q_86%2Cf_auto/88b37d76501e1ac2eff127f76356be15390448ba (https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/aussie-start-up-pushing-switch-to-electric-passenger-planes-20181221-p50npp.html)Aviation (https://www.smh.com.au/topic/aviation-5ut)






Aussie start up pushing switch to electric passenger planes (https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/aussie-start-up-pushing-switch-to-electric-passenger-planes-20181221-p50npp.html)




Steffen says that re-growing vegetation might help restore some of the balance in the atmosphere that existed before it was cut down but won't mitigate the impact of releasing carbon that's been locked up in the ground for millions of years and burnt by airlines as jet fuel.“You can equate the uptake with trees from a geological source like petroleum. That’s where, from a scientific point of view, you’re not flying carbon neutral," he says.Andrew Blakers, a professor of engineering, also at the ANU, says offsetting is "perfectly respectable" – as long as it is done by creating new sources of clean energy, such as funding new wind or solar farms, which then prevents coal or other fossil fuels being used.“There’s no reason they shouldn’t fly provided that they find a really reputable method of offsetting," he says.



Offsets are the only way forward to greatly reduce aircraft emissions for the next 10 to 20 years, until technology catches up.

The most reliable way to do this is to take it into your own hands, and install solar panels to your roof, he says. A five-kilowatt rooftop solar power system (which will cost around $5000) can save about six tonnes of carbon emissions from coal power every year – about enough to offset four people flying to Europe and back.Professor Blakers says that not only will this pay for the carbon cost but it might cover some of the airfare too, thanks to savings on your power bill or tariffs from feeding excess energy back into the grid.He says getting fossil fuel out of aviation has to happen eventually, however it is going to be one of the last things on the road to a carbon-free economy because of the difficulties with biofuels."Offsets are the only way forward to greatly reduce aircraft emissions for the next 10 to 20 years, until technology catches up," he says.In the meantime, he says technology is available today for us to get out of coal-generated electricity, gas-powered heating and petrol-run cars, which together account for 50 per cent of our emissions.If you can't invest in clean energy projects directly and aren't happy with your airline's scheme, organisations including Atmosfair, based in Germany, and the British group Climate Care calculate the climate impact of your flight and accept donations that support projects including wind farms, hydro power schemes and solar energy.
But what are the alternatives?

















Professor Steffen says an enormous amount of the world's air travel today could actually be done by high-speed rail, and the rest could be operated with biofuels, which desperately needs research funding.These alternative jet fuels, made from sources such as crops, can reduce emissions by up to 80 per cent but currently cost almost twice the price as standard jet fuel. Biofuels makes up 0.01 per cent of the global industry's fuel use today.British Airways, for example, is working on a plan to make jet biofuel from commercial waste, and expects to spend $US500 million ($740 million) developing viable biofuels over the next 20 years. Qantas is spending $50 million over the next 10 years trying to kickstart a local biofuel industry."It is these sorts of projects that are much more important than planting trees," says Professor Steffen.Will we ever fly carbon-free?

As well as using biofuels, one solution to truly green flying is to power flight with batteries charged from renewable sources.Several companies are working on battery-powered aircraft, ranging from four- or five-person "air taxis" promoted by the likes of Uber to small aircraft such as Airbus' hybrid E-Fan X, which could operate on many of the world's domestic short-haul routes.Air New Zealand is looking at ways to convert its fleet of small turbo-prop planes used on domestic routes to electric or hybrid engines, while Norway plans for all domestic flights to be on electric aircraft by 2040.However, 80 per cent of aviation's CO2 emissions come from flights of more than 1500 kilometres, according to the International Air Transport Association, which no electric aircraft in development could fly.

[caevans]

All airports should be built on a Lazy Susan design so the new generation doesn't have to deal with crosswinds! GR&D LMAO.

[str12]

I and people like me worked on Y2K for a number of banks to ensure it was a non issue. The banks listened to the experts and took appropriate action. People who run banks are generally much smarter than pilots. Why do pilots think they know more about the climate than climate scientists just because they read an article by someone that is not an expert, or listened to a mate down the pub?

if you get pain in you chest would you:
a) Ask the FO
b) Ask your GP
c) Do nothing

I am certain everyone would, I hope, do b) so why is it so hard to trust scientists who are the recognised experts?

Q: How many of the top 500 Scientific Institues on the planet agree that Climate Change is real, man made, etc?

A: Every. Single. One.

Look it up if you do not believe me.

[mjohansen]

Q: How many of the top 500 Scientific Institues on the planet agree that Climate Change is real, man made, etc?

A: Every. Single. One.


Probably. The big question is just "how much is man made". New published research concludes man is only responsible for about 0,2 degrees C out of the approx 1.0 deg C rise the last 100+ years.

[fltlt]

I and people like me worked on Y2K for a number of banks to ensure it was a non issue. The banks listened to the experts and took appropriate action. People who run banks are generally much smarter than pilots. Why do pilots think they know more about the climate than climate scientists just because they read an article by someone that is not an expert, or listened to a mate down the pub?

if you get pain in you chest would you:
a) Ask the FO
b) Ask your GP
c) Do nothing

I am certain everyone would, I hope, do b) so why is it so hard to trust scientists who are the recognised experts?

Q: How many of the top 500 Scientific Institues on the planet agree that Climate Change is real, man made, etc?

A: Every. Single. One.

Look it up if you do not believe me.


I am certain I would not ask M. Mouse in either case.

[Beausoleil]

One can calculate the radiative equilibrium temperature of a planet given its distance from tbe sun by radiative balance. Heat in = heat out. Heat out varies as T^4..

For Earth, Venus snd Mars the surface temperature is higher.

This is because atmospheric gases absorb radiated infra-red from the surface. Heat from the sun is deposited at the surface but can't be lost to space from there. So heat is transported up through the atmosphere until the overlying layers of absorbing gases are insufficient to stop it radiating away. This heat current requires a thermal gradient. So the surface is hotter than predicted by radiative balance.

It is the assymetric molecules that absorb this radiation. Notably CO2, NOx, SO2, and H2O. Not O2 or N2

The wster cycle is rapid so it responds to the balance driven by the other gases. It ampifies their effect since higher T leads to higher water content.

The baseline concentration of these gases explains the surface tempersture of the earth.

The concentration of these forcing gases has increased significantly since industrialisation. Heat has to get higher in the atmosphere to be radiated away. The current is the same, so the gradient is the same. Same gradient... longer distance... bigger T difference between radiative equilibrium and surface T... higher surface T.

isotopic evidence demonstrates the source of the extra CO2 is burning of fossil fuels.

So basic, well understood science predicts that the climate should have warmed.

Predicting the detailed effects is very complex.

But believing there is no significant effect is scientifically illiterate.... it's like denying the absorption spectrum of CO2.

[dr dre]

Probably. The big question is just "how much is man made". New published research concludes man is only responsible for about 0,2 degrees C out of the approx 1.0 deg C rise the last 100+ years.

I can’t find any research that backs up that claim. Please post a link to it.

Heres some actual research that shows how much humans are influencing the climate:

Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans)

[dr dre]

I don't have a dog in this fight, however I am suspicious of the whole climate change agenda as the current solutions seem to be more about breaking economies than actually fixing anything.

I know plenty of scientists. Despite what your favourite media talking heads may tell you is the truth a grand total of zero of them are communists hell bent on overturning our capitalist economic system.

That said regardless of the validity of the science, if this starts catching on there will be no Aviation industry at all, which means we all will be out of a job and society will have a much lower standard of living than it once had. High Speed Trains and Bio Fuel are certainly not the solution.


Not necessarily. New jet airliners have greatly improved fuel efficiency over time. There’s no reason why it can’t continue. R&D can be conducted into new propulsion sources, electric, solar, battery that further decrease emissions. It just needs politcial will and industry cooperation to achieve it.

[fltlt]

I know plenty of scientists. Despite what your favourite media talking heads may tell you is the truth a grand total of zero of them are communists hell bent on overturning our capitalist economic system.




Not necessarily. New jet airliners have greatly improved fuel efficiency over time. There’s no reason why it can’t continue. R&D can be conducted into new propulsion sources, electric, solar, battery that further decrease emissions. It just needs politcial will and industry cooperation to achieve it.

Don’t even need to go that far, simply euthanize 2/3rds of the worlds population, far less heat sources/CO2 produced.
Then an annual worldwide cap by lottery on who can have a child, no winning ticket, no child, number decided by Governments.

So, whose first then?

[str12]

Probably. The big question is just "how much is man made". New published research concludes man is only responsible for about 0,2 degrees C out of the approx 1.0 deg C rise the last 100+ years.

Where is it? Published where? Bet it is not in a peer reviewed scientific publication…

[neville_nobody]

I know plenty of scientists. Despite what your favourite media talking heads may tell you is the truth a grand total of zero of them are communists hell bent on overturning our capitalist economic system.

That's not the issue. I'm sure there are scientists on both sides of thought. What is interesting is that Climate Change seems to only affect first world democratic countries. China is completely immune to any affect of climate change. That in itself is suspicious. If climate change is a big of a deal as everyone makes out then China needs to get in line today. The reality is in the big picture Aviation and Australia are totally irrelevant. The idea of per capita consumption is pointless. It is only virtue signalling. If you want to really fix climate change as it is being currently described then China needs to change today. And everyone needs to stop driving cars. Until then this whole thing is just a way of destroying countries.

What is stupid is that numerous countries could go and shoot themselves in the foot economically, lower the quality of life and living standards, no flying, no cars, limited power. Meanwhile China just carries on as the world biggest polluter dominating the world economically and militarily.

Don’t even need to go that far, simply euthanize 2/3rds of the worlds population, far less heat sources/CO2 produced.
Then an annual worldwide cap by lottery on who can have a child, no winning ticket, no child, number decided by Governments.

I think it has been proven enough times in history that government eugenics doesn't work. Let's just stick to what is the status quo and allow people to make their own choices as they see fit.

[bolthead]

How can one molecule (CO2) transfer so much heat to 2,379 (420ppm) other molecules? In the words of JSM, why is it so?

[George Glass]

“There’s no reason why it can’t continue. R&D can be conducted into new propulsion sources, electric, solar, battery that further decrease emissions. It just needs politcial will and industry cooperation to achieve it.”

See, that’s the problem in a nutshell. There is an assumption amongst climate change advocates that its just a matter of political will. Its not. Show me a serious engineer that thinks that battery powered RPT aircraft are a possibility anytime soon. Or that China is going to give up coal. Or that solar in Europe in January does more than urinate money up against the wall. Checkout G. B. National Grid status (http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk)
At some stage this panic as got to be moderated by reality

And just quietly, I’m not sure why some posters assume that pilots aren’t scientifically literate. I have a B.Sc.
I’m more than happy to have a discussion about the physics of climate change.

[Lookleft]

What is interesting is that Climate Change seems to only affect first world democratic countries. China is completely immune to any affect of climate change. That in itself is suspicious. If climate change is a big of a deal as everyone makes out then China needs to get in line today. The reality is in the big picture Aviation and Australia are totally irrelevant. The idea of per capita consumption is pointless. It is only virtue signalling. If you want to really fix climate change as it is being currently described then China needs to change today. And everyone needs to stop driving cars. Until then this whole thing is just a way of destroying countries.

There is the hypocrisy nicely summarised. China and India have been given a free pass on emissions because they are considered to be developing countries! I'm not sure that a lot of developing countries in Africa have space programs and massive military budgets. If a climate emergency actually exists then every country regardless of development should be included in any emissions reductions. As NN stated it is only western democratic countries have the responsibility so even though China and India are the burners of the coal Australia is considered to be responsible and the emissions are attributed to it because they are buying the stuff from us.

New jet airliners have greatly improved fuel efficiency over time. That statement doesn't even make sense. Its the engines that need to have the improved fuel efficiency., What is actually happening is that in order to reduce emissions the technology of the engines can't keep up and are failing more often than jet engines should. So indirectly the climate change hysteria could be said to be leading to reductions in safety margins. The only airliners currently in development are those that are variations of those already existing.so the efficiencies are a long way off.

I haven't noticed an increase of pilots resigning in protest at the lack of action on climate change. When will the followers of st Greta take up her example and eschew aviation all together? Let us know when you do so that we can see the seriousness in which you take the climate change emergency as opposed to the hysterical rhetoric that has been dished up so far.

Interesting, I don't recall any climate scientist stating that the world would "end" in 2030. I believe the official message is that warming should be limited to 1.5 degrees by 2050 to avoid a hostile climate in the future. Anything above this value would have undesirable consequences.

Why do you think its called a climate emergency? This from the Guardian: We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN Urgent changes needed to cut risk of extreme heat, drought, floods and poverty, says IPCC
​​​​​​​

So who is resigning from the evil emissions entity that is aviation? Ask yourself What would Greta Do?

Did someone mention hyprocisy:

While it could be argued that the threat of climate change is imminent, and an actual state of emergency is warranted, that hasn't been done in the case of these climate-emergency declarations.

"Unless there's actually a written declaration that refers to an Act, and I haven't seen one, then that's all it is — symbolism," Dr Eburn said.

"Maybe they're [making] a statement so that one jurisdiction can say to the Commonwealth 'look, this really is important'.

"That might be used to bring more pressure to bear, but as far as I can tell, [it doesn't] have any legal meaning at all."

Canada is a case in point.

On June 18, Canada became the second country to make the declaration.

The following day, the same Canadian government approved the massive expansion of an oil pipeline that will be capable of moving up to 600,000 barrels of oil every day out of Alberta to port in British Columbia.

This is not what we might expect from a country that has just declared an emergency largely caused by fossil fuels.

​​​​​​​Courtesy of the ABC

[mjohansen]

Where is it? Published where? Bet it is not in a peer reviewed scientific publication…

Can't post URLs yet. The name of the study is
"The Impact of Recent Forcing and Ocean Heat Uptake Data on Estimates of Climate Sensitivity" by Curry and Lewis from 2018.

[Asturias56]

The Canadian example is typical - C govt is elected principally by people who are energy users not producers and so can grandstand

Alberta is a state of energy producers and so is mainly interested in job creation and tax preservation.

Sometime a political party will run on the basis that renewables are costing the tax payer a lot of money right now and should be scrapped - it'll be interesting to see how the public will vote.........

[dr dre]

Can't post URLs yet. The name of the study is
"The Impact of Recent Forcing and Ocean Heat Uptake Data on Estimates of Climate Sensitivity" by Curry and Lewis from 2018.

Is that Judith Curry, the “scientist” who stopped writing peer reviewed articles because on peer review most of her “findings” were discredited by other scientists?

For a debunking of that “research”:

The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_impact_of_recent_forcing_and_ocean_heat_uptake_data_on_e stimates_of_climate_sensitivity)

[dr dre]

How can one molecule (CO2) transfer so much heat to 2,379 (420ppm) other molecules? In the words of JSM, why is it so?

Heres some advice. ANU, UniMelb, UNSW, Monash and a whole bunch of other universities in this country operate climate change research centres. Email them with your queries.

The CSIRO, the BoM, the Australian Academy of Science, Institues of Physics and Marine Science have experts who would know all the answers to all of your questions. Feel free to ask them.

[Ascend Charlie]

If CO2 is absorbing the re-radiated heat from the earth in hot sunlight, the simple solution is to only produce CO2 at night. Stop breathing if the sun is out.

[tio540]

Maybe one of the 95% of the worlds scientists can explain how you can ‘renew energy’ with just a solar panel, or windmill.

It’s a bit like ‘happily married’, and ‘military intelligence’. You can have one, or the other, but together it makes no sense.

[Asturias56]

OK I'll rise to the bait

"renewable energy" is shorthand for energy derived from sources which are not depleted in our lifetimes - eg solar, wind, tidal - you use it today and it's still there tomorrow

Non Renewable energy is a gallon of gasoline or a ton of coal - you use it , it's gone. You can wait 2-3 million years for it to be replaced naturally or you can just continue to dpelte the resource - once it's all used up you abandon the oil well or the coal mine and try and find another.

[tio540]

Plus it sounds so much better than melting silica to harness solar radiation, using a coal fired power station.

[Asturias56]

or destroying areas to mine Lithium - but both sides of the argument just go to extremes - there are few who seem capable of looking at the middle ground.

Personally I think burning gas in places like Australia for power is a bad thing - but then spending a fortune in govt money subsidies to support wind power can be just as stupid

[HabuHunter]

Is that Judith Curry, the “scientist” who stopped writing peer reviewed articles because on peer review most of her “findings” were discredited by other scientists?

For a debunking of that “research”
...link removed...(I can’t post links yet)



This is a good example of an ad hominem fallacy. You attack the person rather than address the argument she is making.
Dr Judith Curry has impeccable credentials, and regardless of what you state, she is still publishing.

The fact that other scientists may critique( or indeed support) her work is normal, that’s how science should work.

Your debunking link is an anonymously written rationalwiki article that references another internet blog for support, an article written by some one called “Climate Denier Roundup”.... and you think this debunks a paper written by a credentialed scientist in a peer reviewed journal?

[dr dre]

This is a good example of an ad hominem fallacy. You attack the person rather than address the argument she is making.
Dr Judith Curry has impeccable credentials, and regardless of what you state, she is still publishing.

The fact that other scientists may critique( or indeed support) her work is normal, that’s how science should work.

Your debunking link is an anonymously written rationalwiki article that references another internet blog for support, an article written by some one called “Climate Denier Roundup”.... and you think this debunks a paper written by a credentialed scientist in a peer reviewed journal?

You’re doing a bit of ad hominem fallacy there yourself. There are multiple references on that link to multiple fully peer reviewed studies by scientists debunking Curry’s work. If she has “impeccable credentials” why has she been caught using debunked talking points, admitted she hasn’t even read scientific reports she’s attacked, used very politically charged language calling climate science a “hoax”, admitted to talking money from fossil fuel companies?

Im sure she’s undertaken plenty of peer reviewed study, but it’s her conclusions on the issue of climate change that have been debunked by 97% of other climate scientists. She has openly admitted she will not write peer reviewed articles anymore because she was sick of being “attacked” (in reality having her work critiqued and being told she was wrong) by almost every other climate scientist.

Judith Curry - Source Watch (https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry)

[Angle of Attack]

Regardless of it all BNE is about to get 35 knot westerlies yet again tomorrow, now in December? I don’t care what you think Ive lived in SEQ 40+ years and to get this run of hot dry westerlies running to December is pretty much unprecedented, and it’s been worse in SYD. Traditionally the westerlies finish in September and come back in May, bar a few odd days. Something is really f****ed with the weather atm.

[The name is Porter]

Something should be done about climate change so Queenslanders necks don't get redder.

[topradio]

Ok am prepared to put my cards on the table and declare that I veer towards being a doubter of man made cc. To qualify that I do believe that man's activity has an effect on the environment and to a certain extent the weather. But I suspect that a large group of so called experts and hangers on are choosing to cry wolf and exaggerate and take the worse case possibility in order to get their deeply held opinion over.
My sceptisism comes partly from the evidence of science based experts who, en masse, debunk something that I know to be true because it goes against recent scientific and politically opinion. (you have to understand that the researchers are paid by somebody and politicians, by their job description, actually know nothing and have to take advice from the paid researchers)
He who pays the piper

I would like expert consensus to give me some imperial evidence of exactly what we can expect to happen if we don't change our ways. And I mean not 'expect to get worse' or 'will increase' but an increase in tsunami by for example at least 200% or that a certain glacier will have receded by over 200 miles if we don't definatevly reduce our production of co2 by a set date. After all their models are now so accurate that it ought to be possible to do that.

The date of 2330 has been mentioned, that's not long away so a lot of us should be able to witness the accuracy of the science.
My suspicion is that globally we will reduce the rate of increase of co2 a little and when the sky doesn't fall-in in just over a decade the mmcc industry will point to that as the reason.
Two further points that are certain
1 if you are serious about conserving the earth, then don't breed. Absolutely the worst thing you can do to the planet is procreate.
2 When man dies out, the earth will survive just fine until some outside force decides to destroy it.

[str12]

No topradio, they are not ‘so called experts’, they are experts. And climate science, like many branches of science, does not work that way and no one can give you definitive numbers. They could provide the raw data, but, with respect, if you don’t have a PhD in Climate Science then any conclusions you make from it are meaningless, like many opinions on this thread. Why not just let the experts interpret the data and trust their conclusions? Or are you willing to let one of your passengers fly your aircraft because ‘I saw it on TV and it looks dead easy’?

[dr dre]

My sceptisism comes partly from the evidence of science based experts who, en masse, debunk something that I know to be true because it goes against recent scientific and politically opinion.

Huh? That makes no sense. You doubt climate change because scientists debunk some random thing you know to be true? What do you mean?

[The name is Porter]

In my mind, most of the damage done, therefore promoting denialism, was by this clown:

In 2007, Flannery declared “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”. As environmental engineering professor Stewart Franks (https://theconversation.com/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither-are-the-experts-5709) observed five years later — by which time the Gillard Government had appointed Flannery chief commissioner of the Climate Change Commission — “Fast forward to 2012 and we see widespread drenching rains, flooded towns and cities, and dams full to the brim and overtopping.” As to why Flannery’s prediction was “so spectacularly wrong”, Franks remarked “He is perhaps best described as an amateur enthusiast.”

Chief commissioner Flannery subsequently released a report through his office in 2012 (https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/slippery-when-wet-tim-flannerys-climate-warnings-questioned-after-recent-flooding/news-story/032676cb0c4bd1ba0e1e99bda904bca2?sv=b88b53b3a64b900159375cfe 7ddb486b) saying “climate change cannot be ruled out” as a factor in these downpours. Asked at that press conference about his credibility, he stated “I’ve been really consistent with what I’ve said, which is that we’ve got a water problem in this country.”

I remember it well at the time. How could you trust anyone on climate change when un-qualified fools like this were in 'official' positions.

[dr dre]

In my mind, most of the damage done, therefore promoting denialism, was by this clown:

I remember it well at the time. How could you trust anyone on climate change when un-qualified fools like this were in 'official' positions.

Because Flannery’s quotes were taken out of context, misrepresented and occasionally were just flat out lied about from sources biased against him. As a former Climate Commissioner he would have been target number one for the deniers.

The quote from Flannery in the post above was taken right out of context:

Tim Flannery Did Not Say Australia’s Dams Would Never Fill Again (https://indifferencegivesyouafright.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/tim-flannery-did-not-say-australias-dams-would-never-fill-again/)

[V-Jet]

Catching up with this conversation so I apologise if someone has made this comment before, but here's my take on it:

1) Live simpler - it's not a Govt problem, it's down to individuals living simpler, a more agrarian 1910 style economy where we don't buy new cars every 2 years.
2) Every 16yo on the planet needs to be bought an unrecyclable plastic racing yacht.

[Lookleft]

But TF did propose a city in the middle of Australia called Geothermia. Its interesting that the CC hystericals will be just as vehement as the alleged CC deniers. All you did dr dre was offer yet another website with someone's commentary, so whats the difference. If TF didn't actually say it the then Premier of Vic, John Brumby certainly did,That's why he built the Wonthaggi desal plant at great cost. I think it started operating at the same time as the Victorian floods occurred but the taxpayers of Victoria were committed to paying for its output.

And climate science, like many branches of science, does not work that way and no one can give you definitive numbers.

Then it is just forecasting and modelling and theory, very much like economics. Can someone tell me which university faculty economics is a part of?

This is the current state of the CC hysterics position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes

​​​​​​​ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes)

[dr dre]

Its interesting that the CC hystericals will be just as vehement as the alleged CC deniers. All you did dr dre was offer yet another website with someone's commentary, so whats the difference.

So according to you Climate deniers are only “alleged”, yet the vast majority of scientists who know CC is real are all definately “hysterical”.

All I did was offer another website with commentary? No, I offered a website that sourced it’s information from the IPCC Assessment report, which was written by almost 2000 scientists and then peer reviewed by another 2000 scientists from 80 countries to show you what you posted about TF’s comments were misleading and taken out of context. Or are they just part of a worldwide globalist UN led conspiracy? Should I put my faith in a tiny handful of “scientists” who either receive money from fossil fuel interests or produced conclusions so bad they were laughed out of the scientific community?

That's why he built the Wonthaggi desal plant at great cost. I think it started operating at the same time as the Victorian floods occurred but the taxpayers of Victoria were committed to paying for its output.


On the other hand over a decade ago the WA government recognised that climate change and lack of rainfall was going to adversely effect Perth’s dams and water supply in the future. With some foresight and investment they created desalination plants that now supply 50% of the cities water supply. A great example of a proactive solution in response to climate change, maybe they should give Victoria a hand?

[Dexta]

One of the biggest problems with the current media and/or climate scientists and/or their PR departments is the air of absoluteness of their facts, statements like "it's never been hotter", "most rapid increase in temperature ever" etc etc etc. I have been reading scientific journals and published papers (mainly High Energy Physics and Astrophysics) for about 30 years now and without a doubt a story post will come out with a declaration taken from a paper that X will definitely happen by Y. When reading the actual paper it will (usually in the abstract) still contain a "most likely" prediction. However, 5, 10 odd years down the track the prediction is usually out by a long way or never actually going to eventuate. Even now Einsteins "Theory" of Relativity (theory in quotes because many physicists are quite firm that it is a law) is now starting to unravel, mainly because of more accurate measurements, better equipment and less rigid thinking (it was almost heresy to even think that Einstein might be wrong).
On better measurements, one of the big problems climate researchers have is inconsistent measurements and data. Temperature records have gone from basic mercury or alcohol thermometers to digital equipment, some were in Stevenson boxes, some not, some measurements taken every hour, half hour or quarter hour, some now taken every 5 seconds. Sure the BOM and other meteorological institutions have homogenised the data based on their best assumptions but it is still an assumption, not a measurement. If I use an hourglass to time how long it takes my aircraft to travel 100nm and average over the results over time (to remove the effects of wind etc) and determine it takes an hour, then my aircraft averages 100knots. If i then time it using a digital stop watch and get an average time of 56 minutes, has my aircraft gotten faster by 6 knots?
As time goes and more data comes in from the same instruments over time it should gradually give a better picture, how hard is it to say "from our best estimates and assumptions, based on models built on what we currently know we postulate that this will happen in X years, but we must stress that this is only a hypothesis, we hope to get a better idea in future years, but in the mean time it might be a good idea to try and convince China and India to cut down on their emissions and for everybody else to do what they can within reason."

[dr dre]

how hard is it to say "from our best estimates and assumptions, based on models built on what we currently know we postulate that this will happen in X years, but we must stress that this is only a hypothesis, we hope to get a better idea in future years"

When does a hypothesis become a fact? About the time 97% of the world’s scientists (and 100% of the credible ones) are saying it I believe.

What amount of evidence will finally have to be presented for climate deniers to change their minds? Every year that goes along new scientific evidence continues piling on more understanding about climate change yet deniers still stick their heads in the sand and refuse to believe it.

[601]

At some stage this panic as got to be moderated by reality

Reality will set in when the last the sun goes down on the day the last coal fired power station is closed.

"renewable energy" is shorthand for energy derived from sources which are not depleted in our lifetimes - eg solar, wind, tidal - you use it today and it's still there tomorrow

But the material that makes "renewable energy" possible is finite.

As time goes and more data comes in from the same instruments over time it should gradually give a better picture, how hard is it to say "from our best estimates and assumptions, based on models built on what we currently know we postulate that this will happen in X years, but we must stress that this is only a hypothesis, we hope to get a better idea in future years, but in the mean time it might be a good idea to try and convince China and India to cut down on their emissions and for everybody else to do what they can within reason."

Well said.

[The name is Porter]

Because Flannery’s quotes were taken out of context, misrepresented and occasionally were just flat out lied about from sources biased against him. As a former Climate Commissioner he would have been target number one for the deniers.

Yeah, nah. He wasn't taken out of contest at all. Read what his (real) peers say about him.

He was completely out of his depth. And an inappropriate choice for climate commissioner. Any talk of misrepresentation is him trying to re-write history.

I'm not a deny-er by the way, I just remember his stupid comments.

[dr dre]

Yeah, nah. He wasn't taken out of contest at all. Read what his (real) peers say about him.

He was completely out of his depth. And an inappropriate choice for climate commissioner. Any talk of misrepresentation is him trying to re-write history.

I'm not a deny-er by the way, I just remember his stupid comments.

Sorry, can you name his “real peers” and what they “really” think of him?

The only reason you remember his “stupid comments” is because (as I’ve shown in the previous link backed up by IPCC data) he was taken out of context by media with an agenda.

Btw, just because a few snowflakes were upset by the language he used to describe climate change that doesn’t invalidate the underlying science.

[Lookleft]

When does a hypothesis become a fact? About the time 97% of the world’s scientists (and 100% of the credible ones) are saying it I believe.

It could also be when rumour becomes fact. Just what number does 100% of the credible ones represent dre? And what is it you do for a living again?

[Daddy Fantastic]

Sorry, can you name his “real peers” and what they “really” think of him?

The only reason you remember his “stupid comments” is because (as I’ve shown in the previous link backed up by IPCC data) he was taken out of context by media with an agenda.

Btw, just because a few snowflakes were upset by the language he used to describe climate change that doesn’t invalidate the underlying science.


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/21/book-review-why-scientists-disagree-about-global-w/?utm_source=GOOGLE&utm_medium=cpc&utm_id=chacka&utm_campaign=TWT+-+DSA&gclid=CjwKCAiA5o3vBRBUEiwA9PVzamc1wpP7nUlIXHWGRibRDCLcYFPLoG jCAzRcMSg8yD9yta-kMtx5OxoCHKcQAvD_BwE

Read this, seems to me your hero climate scientists are basically full of it. They certainly do not base their VOODOO SCIENCE on clear or factual based evidence. Their experiments are severely biased at best and complete and utter hogwash at worst.

As for the lunatic that runs your beloved skeptical science website, seems most of you man made global warming/climate change/climate emergency/Greta Thunberg sees carbon particles and is my hero have been taken for a ride.

[dr dre]

Read this, seems to me your hero climate scientists are basically full of it. They certainly do not base their VOODOO SCIENCE on clear or factual based evidence. Their experiments are severely biased at best and complete and utter hogwash at worst.

As for the lunatic that runs your beloved skeptical science website, seems most of you man made global warming/climate change/climate emergency/Greta Thunberg sees carbon particles and is my hero have been taken for a ride.

I could barely decipher that, but coming from someone who posts links from the Washington Times, infamous for publishing articles from white nationalists and neo-Nazis, and articles from the Heartland Institue, best known for helping tobacco companies try to prove smoking is safe, I’m not surprised.

Maybe next try posting from GLOBALISTWARMISTMARXISTHOAXEXPOSED.COM, probably just as credible as those two sources.

[73qanda]

When does a hypothesis become a fact? About the time 97% of the world’s scientists (and 100% of the credible ones) are saying it I believe. Not at all. You don’t really believe that do you Dre?
A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality) and can be proven to be true with evidence (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence). For example, "this sentence contains words" is a linguistic (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic) fact, and "the sun is a star" is a cosmological (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological) fact. Further, "Abraham Lincoln (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln) was the 16th President of the United States (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" are also both facts, of the historical (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History) type. All of these statements have the epistemic (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic) quality of being "ontologically (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontologically) superior" to opinion (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion) or interpretation

[dr dre]

Not at all. You don’t really believe that do you Dre?

I believe the 97% of scientists saying that human induced climate change is a fact, not just a hypothesis.

As factual as Lincoln being assassinated.
As factual as this sentence containing words.

A hypothesis is a statement that scientific research can test. Scientists made their hypothesis on climate change, conducted the research and experiments and came back with the evidence that climate change is real, a conclusion that climate change is real, therefore it’s a fact.

This is a direct quote from NASA about the fact of climate change:

The weight of all of this information taken together points to the single consistent fact that humans and our activity are warming the planet,

The scientific method and climate change: How scientists know - NASA (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2743/the-scientific-method-and-climate-change-how-scientists-know/)

[mjohansen]

I believe the 97% of scientists saying that human induced climate change is a fact, not just a hypothesis.

Where did you get that number from? And is it 97% of ALL scientists? Even computer scientists and medical scientists??

[The name is Porter]

The only reason you remember his “stupid comments” is because (as I’ve shown in the previous link backed up by IPCC data) he was taken out of context by media with an agenda.

Nah, the only reason I remember they were stupid was because..........they were stupid.

Btw, just because a few snowflakes were upset by the language he used to describe climate change that doesn’t invalidate the underlying science.

It wasn't the 'language' it was the stupid comments.

(note: I am not a climate change deny-er)

[str12]

Daddy F, you refer to peer reviewed hard science as “Voodoo Science”. Perhaps it will help if someone explained how science works. If you are still at school maybe you could ask one of your teachers?

[dr dre]

Daddy F, you refer to peer reviewed hard science as “Voodoo Science”. Perhaps it will help if someone explained how science works. If you are still at school maybe you could ask one of your teachers?

I posted a link from NASA explaining the scientific method (hypothesize, test, observe, analyse, conclude, review) but Daddy F seems to prefer articles from writers of the Heartland Institute, an American conservative lobby group that became infamous for helping Tobacco companies try to use "science" to deny the negative health effects of cigarette smoking.

[dr dre]

Where did you get that number from? And is it 97% of ALL scientists? Even computer scientists and medical scientists??


Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.


Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming - NASA (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)

[mjohansen]

Ahh yes the infamous Cook study.

"Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming."

He starts throwing out 66% of the papers. Then he only looks at the abstracts. :rolleyes:

[mjohansen]

Great article by climate scientist Judith Curry today:
https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/02/madrid/#more-25458

[dr dre]

Great article by climate scientist Judith Curry today:
https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/02/madrid/#more-25458

Curry has already been debunked as spreading false, discredited statements (https://skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm), of not reading reports she criticises (https://thinkprogress.org/judith-curry-abandons-science-e13059a66c99/), of taking money from fossil fuel companies (https://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry) and having her work criticised so deeply she won't submit any articles for peer review anymore, she just publishes them on her blog where no one can upset this snowflake (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry).


Ahh yes the infamous Cook study.
"Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming."
He starts throwing out 66% of the papers. Then he only looks at the abstracts. :rolleyes::


Why would you look at papers that didn't express a position? The Cook study has been peer reviewed and backed up multiple times, any critiques of his study have not (https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm).
And that's not the only consensus study, there have been many, and they all lead to the same conclusion (https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm)
And you critique Cook for only looking at abstracts? Fine, on that study Cook went further than the abstracts and actually asked the authors of the study if they agreed with the consensus, and 97% of them did (https://skepticalscience.com/Consensus-Project-self-rating-data-now-available.html).

[mjohansen]

Ohhhhhh, taking money from bad fossil fuel companies that wants a climate scientist to do hurricane forecasting. Bad bad girl.
An yes she left Georgia Tech a year ago to focus on her own consulting business. So what? Doesn't change the over 180 published papers she did while being a professor.

I know other scientists think of her as a heretic, yes a heretic, because she doesn't subscribe to the so-called consensus. Welcome to the climate inquisition.

[73qanda]

I believe the 97% of scientists saying that human induced climate change is a fact, not just a hypothesis.

As factual as Lincoln being assassinated.
As factual as this sentence containing words.

A hypothesis is a statement that scientific research can test. Scientists made their hypothesis on climate change, conducted the research and experiments and came back with the evidencethat climate change is real, a conclusion that climate change is real, therefore it’s a fact.

This is a direct quote from NASA about the fact of climate change:
Dre do you not see the difference between Lincoln being assassinated and, this sentence containing words, and the predictions of climate models?
Two of them are verifiable and one is not.
That the climate changes is fact ( it is verifiable) , I would say that humans ( and other animals/ plants ) having an effect on the climate is also fact ( verifiable).
The output of climate prediction models which by their nature must be produced using assumptions, don’t meet the standard of scientific fact. I can’t go out and verify them and you can’t go out and falsify them.
There is a consensus for sure. History shows us that consensus is a poor measure for what is good/ right/ correct.
What we need now is less polarisation, less derogatory comments, less hype, less scaremongering, and more diligent, independent, process based scientific research with accurate reporting of the findings. It will take decades to build a half descent understanding of how our climate works and in the mean time Joe public might have to be patient rather than demand conclusions.
I believe the 97% of scientists saying that human induced climate change is a fact, not just a hypothesis.
Fair enough. For me, I agree that humans must have an effect on the climate, but I can’t see how the climate models are verifiable and it appears to me that the climate is doing what it has always done. I believe a middle ground of continued/ increased scientific research and judicious environmental planning is in order while we gather information.
I hope you have a good day. Qanda

[dr dre]

Ohhhhhh, taking money from bad fossil fuel companies that wants a climate scientist to do hurricane forecasting. Bad bad girl.

It does show a conflict of interest. It is also something that suspiciously occurs with the vast majority of deniers. They end up producing “research” that just so happens to deny science that may cause those companies financial harm. Just like how the aforementioned Heartland Institute just happened to produce scientific “research” that showed smoking wasn’t dangerous when they were funded by Tobacco companies. Just a co-incidence though, nothing more....

An yes she left Georgia Tech a year ago to focus on her own consulting business. So what? Doesn't change the over 180 published papers she did while being a professor.

How many of them refute the notion of human induced climate change? How many made the scientific community wake up and realise they were wrong? Zero.

Doesn’t matter how many papers she published in total, if none of them definitely refuted the facts on climate change then it’s irrelevant.

And she didn’t just leave academia to focus on a private business, she openly admitted on her own blog she was sick of the wider scientific community refuting her work. Sounds like she threw the toys out of the pram on that one.

I know other scientists think of her as a heretic, yes a heretic, because she doesn't subscribe to the so-called consensus. Welcome to the climate inquisition.

It isn’t the “so-called consensus”, it’s a scientific fact, as I explained to you in my previous post.

Her side is like the religious powers that be at the time of the inquisition, not using the scientific method, not conducting valid research, and instead using gobbledygook to back up their debunked “theories”.

The reason she is disliked by the scientific community is because she is just plain incompetent.

It seems she was widely respected in academia, and did produce work about 15 years ago showing a link between climate change and increased hurricane severity, that upset a lot of denier snowflakes, who deeply criticised her. She obviously took it to heart, and tried to reach out to the deniers. They got to her, and she started spouting the same nonsense they did. That’s when she started producing “research” that was critiqued by every other scientist.

[HabuHunter]

Curry has already been debunked
.

Dr Dre, she hasn’t “already been debunked”. All you did was post a link to the sourcewatch website. That website is another one of the anonymously hosted, biased, non-science, and agenda driven sources which you seem to take as gospel.

You’ve got to stop the ad hominem attacks...if for no other reason that they expose your arguments as fraudulent. It cuts both ways, the amount of funding given to the pro climate scientists is enormous... does that influence their findings?

How many times do people have to tell you that science does NOT rely on consensus. Every time someone trots out the 97% consensus Statement I know they don’t understand the scientific method.

The climate change debate is still ongoing but it’s become political rather than scientific. The skeptical scientists’ opinions are being suppressed by a range of tactics. This is itself a red flag, a real scientific debate welcomes skeptics. If you have a strong position, you should be able to defend it from all criticisms without resorting to ad hominem attacks and bogus claims of consensus.

[73qanda]

It isn’t the “so-called consensus”, it’s a scientific fact, as I explained to you in my previous post.
This is where it gets hairy Dre. You say it’s scientific fact and mention that you have already explained that to us.....
It’s hard to see how the climate model predictions are ‘scientific fact’.
Just to make sure we are not misunderstanding each other, can you answer the following statement with a true or false, it would help my understanding of your position as the discussion continues.
’ Climate Model predictions of future global temperatures are scientific fact’ TRUE/FALSE

[Dexta]

I think Dr Dre that you will find that very few things in science are actual laws, most things are still theories or a combination of both. Take gravity (very pertinent to pilots), we have Newtons Law of "Universal" Gravity (I have put Universal in quotes - see below*) which gives a formula which allows us to calculate force as per "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." *So far this has only been tested on Earth, in orbit and on the moon, i.e. "Universal" being in the vicinity of Earth, who knows if gravity acts the same way in all parts of the universe :-)
However HOW Gravity works is still a Theory, there is a lot of data, a lot of very smart people working on the topic but so far no one really knows how gravity works. To me, changing climate is very similar to gravity, we can measure (see my post above re: measurement) temperature change and we even have formulae to calculate heat transfer through various mediums etc. BUT what is causing the change and how that change will manifest in the future is still a theory, a lot of scientists think they know and there are a lot of smart people who are working on the issue. Many scientists have thought they cracked gravity, I would even say that 97% thought that string/loop theory was the answer (a consensus?) but new information in the last few years is blowing that apart.
So, the scientific approach to climate change should be: Climate is changing: Yes, Why is it changing: we have lots of ideas and there is strong evidence that humans are involved in some way, What does the future hold: We don't rightly know, and it is too soon to make any worthwhile prediction.

[Willie Nelson]

I genuinely appreciate they you’re making a concerted effort to persuade your fellow pilots of the legitimate concerns of human induced climate change in a respectful and informed manner.

Us pilots have have so much skin in the game of climate denial and doubt. It’s just too hard for many pilots to recognise the conflict of personal interest. I am also deeply concerned but I am such a small minority within the community of professionals that for the most part I truly respect.

As such a small minority within aviation, I have sadly given up trying to convince anyone anymore, it’s just bloody exhausting.

So thanks you for doing some of the heavy lifting.

[dr dre]

Habuhunter, 73qanda and dexta,

Good job trying to trip me up on little irrelevancies. But I'm not going to play that game.
It is unequivocal that every credible scientific body on earth believes that human induced climate change is real, that the evidence that humans have altered the climate in negative ways is now beyond reasonable doubt. Not just theories, not just hypothesis, not just consensus, proven fact (https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/).

Now if you want to concede that because the future hasn't happened yet and you can't say with a definite observation of what will happen exactly, you can. But scientists are now so sure that based on what has happened, what is happening now and what their multiple models show for the future (https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm) that there will be negative effects if current trends are continued or accelerated. There are already consequences happening today (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-effects/).

Not a single person here would not start treatment for cancer if given a diagnosis by one doctor, let alone 97. There's no way a doctor can predict exactly what the cancer is going to do right, so why not wait until conclusive, observed evidence arises that the cancer is having disastrous effects on your body? Why not wait until the cancer has spread to your lungs and brain and you're coughing up blood and having blackouts, then we will have definite evidence and be 100% sure that the cancer is an issue.

There is some debate in scientific ranks over the future for climate change, but it isn't really between those who believe the planet will warm vs those who don't think the science is settled. The debate is actually between those who think the inevitable warming can be altered, vs those who think it's too far gone and no real action can be taken. That's where the debate and skepticism is at the moment. You can discuss that, and you can discuss what measures should be taken to stop it. You can discuss if large economic and cultural changes are worth it to combat climate change, or if the negative economic effects of CC will outweigh those, that's a debate worth having. But given what's known about AGW the science community moved on from debating whether or not it's caused by humans a long, long time ago.

I have friends whom are scientists. They tell me climate deniers or skeptics or whatever you want to call yourselves are viewed in the science community just like chemtrailers are viewed by pilots. Difference being scientists won't get on a science board and tell other scientists that chemtrail theorists have some valid opinions.

[dr dre]

I genuinely appreciate they you’re making a concerted effort to persuade your fellow pilots of the legitimate concerns of human induced climate change in a respectful and informed manner.
Us pilots have have so much skin in the game of climate denial and doubt. It’s just too hard for many pilots to recognise the conflict of personal interest. I am also deeply concerned but I am such a small minority within the community of professionals that for the most part I truly respect.
As such a small minority within aviation, I have sadly given up trying to convince anyone anymore, it’s just bloody exhausting.
So thanks you for doing some of the heavy lifting.


Thanks for your appreciation, I don't want to do this, I do feel like Galileo at times. Climate scientists have received threats and abuse, and worse, for doing their jobs.

I do think the opposition to the science stems from a lot of places, but for pilots it's principally because they are convinced their livelihoods and wealth will be affected. Because they believe that any measures to combat climate change will cause them to lose wealth or income they latch on to pseudo science and biased opinions with an agenda denying the reality. it doesn't have to be that way, and pilots should be making a concerted effort to work with science to produce low emissions aircraft, more use of electric and battery powered machines. Humans have accomplished great things with science (medical technology, spaceflight) there's no reason why we can't make it a unified goal if we work together.

[HabuHunter]

Habuhunter, 73qanda and dexta,

Good job trying to trip me up on little irrelevancies. But I'm not going to play that game.

Dr Dre, all I asked you to do was to stop ad hominem attacks, stop using the consensus argument and to examine your sources.
If you think that those things are small and irrelevant then you won’t convince many people that you have anything worthwhile to contribute except your passion.

[George Glass]

dr dre , It must give you a warm inner glow and sense of deep satisfaction to right off anybody who dares to question your diatribes with the epithet of Climate Denier but may I suggest that simple restating grievance ad infinitum as not activism. Its hectoring to no purpose.
The conceit of all Climate Zealots is that of all activists who believe that belief alone and force of will will by itself see the Unbelievers to see the true path and repent. But it wont. For some very simple reasons, many of which humble operational Pilots understand intuitively.
Fossil fuels are of incomparable economic utility.
Fossil fuels lifted humanity out of the Hobbesian nightmare of 90% of human existence.
China, India and the rest of the developing world know this and are determined to have their moment in the sun. Nothing middle class hand-wringing westerners will change that.
Renewables are nowhere near supplying the majority of base-load power anywhere, and wont for the foreseeable future despite the fantastical non-physical properties advocates dream of.
Until you can come with REAL alternatives to the Jet A1 that powers every jet aircraft, the fuel oil that powers every cargo ship or the diesel that powers every regional diesel electric train, all heavy road transport and farm machinery please spare me your sanctimonious harping.
Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels will be extraordinarily difficult and in some cases not possible at all.
Either way scientists , engineers and entrepreneurs will provide the solutions , not haranguing from Cultural Revolution re-enactors from Extinction Rebellion.

[dr dre]

Dr Dre, all I asked you to do was to stop ad hominem attacks, stop using the consensus argument and to examine your sources.


I did. You told me I didn't understand the scientific method. I posted a link direct from NASA explaining how they use the scientific method to explain that human induced climate change is fact.
Here it is:
The scientific method and climate change: How scientists know (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2743/the-scientific-method-and-climate-change-how-scientists-know/)

Stop using the consensus argument? I will state my views mirror what NASA has written below:
Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)

Examine my sources? OK, after examination I believe that NASA, the several thousand scientists who constitute the IPCC and all of the over 200 worldwide scientific bodies who back them up are good sources (http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html).

Ad hominems? OK, here's direct quotes by the aformentioned "scientist" directly refuted: These are not ad hominem attacks:
Climate Misinformation by Source: Judith Curry (https://skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm)

[dr dre]

Either way scientists , engineers and entrepreneurs will provide the solutions , not haranguing from Cultural Revolution re-enactors from Extinction Rebellion.

You know, despite all your other abusive nonsense directed at me in the rest of you post, that's actually the point I'm making.

I've actually posted nothing, no links or comments from Extinction Rebellion or Greta Thunberg for that matter. Despite being accused multiple times on this thread of being an "Extinction Rebellion luddite" or a "Greta fanboy", I've sourced info from NASA, the CSIRO, researchers at the IPCC, UniQld's Global Change Institute, National Geographic, BoM, various National Academies of Sciences, various University Climate research institutes. I guess they're just a bunch of communist treehugging hippies too, huh?

And as well I notice that you don't deny that humans are changing the climate in negative ways, as is stated by almost every climate scientist on earth. That's the other point I'm making.

[George Glass]

dr dre, Abusive nonsense????
If you are as scientifically literate as you say you are , please contest ONE of the assertions I’ve made.
Please don’t retreat into the “ I’ve been offended” trope.
As I have said before in another post I have a BSc , including some Physics, so I’m more than happy to engage in an informed conversation.

[dr dre]

dr dre, Abusive nonsense????


Actually, yeah.
"It must give you a warm inner glow and sense of deep satisfaction"
"your diatribes"
"hectoring".
"all Climate Zealots"
"hand-wringing westerners"
"fantastical non-physical properties advocates dream of"
"your sanctimonious harping."
"not haranguing from Cultural Revolution re-enactors from Extinction Rebellion".

It definitely wasn't offensive, because I'm not offended, but it was full of personal insults, and if you want to debate someone don't start it off with personal insults.

[George Glass]

I miss the good old days of the Cold War pre 1990.
At least you could have an argument with a Communist.
Now its just millennials with a sense of grievance and a very thin skin.
You still haven’t made an argument against what I asserted.

[dr dre]

Now its just millennials with a sense of grievance and a very thin skin.

OK boomer.

(I really don't like that phrase, and have refrained from using it, but that comment was just begging for it.....)

Anyway enough talk about language, I'm not an climate expert but nor is anyone else here, so is there anyone here with genuine questions re climate change who wants genuine answers, not just their worldview confirmed? I can try and find some contact details for climate scientists at various institutes around the country if so.

[George Glass]

OK boomer

That says it all.

All credibility evaporates in an instant.

Not much point in continuing.......

I’m going fishing

[dr dre]

OK boomer
That says it all.
All credibility evaporates in an instant.
Not much point in continuing.......
I’m going fishing

I thought you said it was the millennials who had the thin skin George...?

[George Glass]

Yeah, but you never really answered the question , did you ? That’s the point. You probably think you’re the future don’t you? But you’re really clueless. And maybe I wont go fishing. THe early season conditions at Lake Louise are the best in years.

[Oceanair]

Well said mate . However, the saying, ‘ Don’t place your pearls before swine ‘ comes to mind when confronted with the wilful ignorance amd self interest of right wing zealots/ climate change denialists and radio shock jocks who will happily spruik science based anecdotes at social occasions to appear more cerebral but go red in the face and throw all their toys out of the cot when the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence concludes that a change in behaviour is required for our collective well being.
Some horses just won’t drink the water no matter how they are lead.

[Asturias56]

"Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels will be extraordinarily difficult and in some cases not possible at all."

Absolutely correct George

TBH using Fossil fuels for a lot of current uses is a terrible waste of a very valuable resource. Most informed people don't see a total stop to fossil fuels but a reduction where possible.

A lot of the real argument is about how fast & who pays

The current UN Conference will not be an edifying spectacle .................

[HabuHunter]

I did. You told me I didn't understand the scientific method. I posted a link direct from NASA explaining how they use the scientific method to explain that human induced climate change is fact.
Link removed

Stop using the consensus argument? I will state my views mirror what NASA has written below:
link removed

Examine my sources? OK, after examination I believe that NASA, the several thousand scientists who constitute the IPCC
plink removed

Ad hominems? OK, here's direct quotes by the aformentioned "scientist" directly refuted: These are not ad hominem attacks

Do you even read the articles you link? The first link takes you to an article written by a pro-climate change journalist who states that “scientists have used the scientific method to proved climate change is real”. What the?

The second link is better and I can see if you haven’t got a science background why you would be misled. But you’ve used another logical fallacy, the appeal to authority fallacy.
Regardless of what NASA says, science is not consensus. NASA has been politicised and there is a growing controversy about its climate activism.

Ok your 3rd link was to a list of scientific organisations, which is great, but you don’t use them. Instead you use incredibly biased, non science, anonymous climate alarmist websites such as your last link, the skeptical science website. I’ve already told you this but you are still using it. The linked article is nonsense. It says things like, “Judith Curry says there is no consensus. She is wrong because 97% of climate scientist agree.” Surely you can see that this is unmitigated rubbish?

[str12]

I disagree, Dr Dre has plenty of credibility and uses science to argue his point, not debunked theories and opinion.

GG, et al, you are not Climate Scientists but argue you are right and all the Worlds credible Climate Scientist are wrong yet offer only opinion and debunked theories. To me that is irrational and demonstrates clear lack of understanding of science, strong bias, and an unwillingness to accept peer reviewed research. It is your credibility that needs to be questioned. You may know a little about aviation but know jack about science, and absolutely nothing about Climate Science. The Flat Earth Society suffers from the same behavioral pattern.

[dr dre]

=Do you even read the articles you link? The first link takes you to an article written by a pro-climate change journalist who states that “scientists have used the scientific method to proved climate change is real”. What the?
What the? Yes, that's exactly what the writing at the link says (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2743/the-scientific-method-and-climate-change-how-scientists-know/). What's the problem with the journalist being "pro-climate change"? It was written by NASA's research centre, the JPL. Staffed by employees and processors at CalTech, considered the world's top Physical Sciences university. Quoting a PhD working in Oceanography and Climate science. I think they know exactly what the scientific method is.

Regardless of what NASA says, science is not consensus. NASA has been politicised and there is a growing controversy about its climate activism.
Now we start to veer into conspiracy theorist territory. What, I guess all their research has been deliberately corrupted and NASA has been infiltrated by "deep state globalists"? Is that you, Senator Malcolm Roberts??'

Now if you're referring to the 2012 letter from 49 former NASA employees including some former astronauts disputing NASA's position on climate change (but conveniently including zero facts or evidence to back up their position (https://www.businessinsider.com.au/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4?r=US&IR=T)), that was easily debunked. There were quite a few spaceflight experts, spacecraft engineers, astronauts, pilots and mission control directors on that list, but absolutely none of them had undertaken one second of climate change research. You might as well have gotten a letter written by 49 former NASA cleaners and kitchenhands. The NASA climate scientists completely refuted their statement, and NASA has not changed any policies due to that letter. It has gone nowhere. There's no "growing controversy".


Ok your 3rd link was to a list of scientific organisations, which is great, but you don’t use them. Instead you use incredibly biased, non science, anonymous climate alarmist websites such as your last link, the skeptical science website. I’ve already told you this but you are still using it. The linked article is nonsense. It says things like, “Judith Curry says there is no consensus. She is wrong because 97% of climate scientist agree.” Surely you can see that this is unmitigated rubbish?

C'mon, if I stopped using websites you disliked I'd be limiting myself to the GWPF, wattsupwiththat and Andrew Bolt's blog.
You dislike Skeptical Science because it's a very well written and scientifically accurate debunking of skeptic arguments. It's endorsed by the CSIRO (https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Assessing-our-climate/Climate-change-QA/Information). I think I'll keep using it.

[Lookleft]

Now if you're referring to the 2012 letter from 49 former NASA employees including some former astronauts disputing NASA's position on climate change (but conveniently including zero facts or evidence to back up their position), that was easily debunked. There were quite a few spaceflight experts, spacecraft engineers, astronauts, pilots and mission control directors on that list, but absolutely none of them had undertaken one second of climate change research.

Extremists from either end of the spectrum cancel each other out and you are definitely at the extreme end of the CC hysterics spectrum. The letter is suggesting that NASA not go to the extreme end of the spectrum and risk damaging their reputation. It does not suggest that climate science is false but that the extreme predictions are not substantiated. For those who would like to make that judgement for themselves this is the text:

The full text of the letter:

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: arse Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight centre

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space centre, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space centre, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, arse.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, arse’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

/s/ Tom Ohesorge

/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, arse’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years

/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

Your ignorance is telling if you think the knowledge these people have about NASA and the way it goes about its business is the equivalent of .... a letter written by 49 former NASA cleaners and kitchenhands.

BTW when will you answer the question about what you actually do for a living? I can help you frame your answer by stating that lookleft is a Jetstar pilot. dr dre is .a ........

[Willie Nelson]

Fossil fuels are of incomparable economic utility.
Fossil fuels lifted humanity out of the Hobbesian nightmare of 90% of human existence.
China, India and the rest of the developing world know this and are determined to have their moment in the sun. Nothing middle class hand-wringing westerners will change that.
Renewables are nowhere near supplying the majority of base-load power anywhere, and wont for the foreseeable future despite the fantastical non-physical properties advocates dream of.
Until you can come with REAL alternatives to the Jet A1 that powers every jet aircraft, the fuel oil that powers every cargo ship or the diesel that powers every regional diesel electric train, all heavy road transport and farm machinery please spare me your sanctimonious harping.
Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels will be extraordinarily difficult and in some cases not possible at all.
Either way scientists , engineers and entrepreneurs will provide the solutions , not haranguing from Cultural Revolution re-enactors from Extinction Rebellion.

I agree with much of what you have stated, currently there is no viable alternative to jet fuel, worthy evolutionary improvements in efficiency aside, are just that, they are not revolutionary and short of an engineering miracle I can’t see any on the horizon in the next twenty years at least.

That said, it doesn’t follow that continuing to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere isn’t causing significant problems that may become irreversible at some point in the future, I guess that’s why many of us are concerned.

If the free market a viable alternative readily available for jet fuels, my guess is we’d already be heavily invested in it.

Correct me me if I’m wrong, and I often am, you don’t feel concerned about the future direction of the climate and it’s potential impacts on the way we source our food and drinking water? If you don’t, then that’s at least one point at which we part ways.

To be clear, I think myself and my wife will live a long and healthy life but I am also concerned about my children and their ability to stay healthy and free of global conflict surrounding issues such as water and food security.

I ask this as a genuine question not a rhetorical diatribe, perhaps you’re not concerned, if not I’d be genuinely interested in your logic, that’s all. You seem articulate enough to be able to flesh this out.

[Lookleft]

If the free market a viable alternative readily available for jet fuels, my guess is we’d already be heavily invested in it.

Aren't the airlines investing heavily in producing bio-fuels?

[Willie Nelson]

Aren't the airlines investing heavily in producing bio-fuels?

Yes, I believe there is some debate as to effectiveness given they’re still a carbon based consumable producing of CO2. If for example it takes 10 times (number plucked firmly from my backside) the energy to produce one barrel of biofuels as is contained in said fuel then it may only be addressing supply rather than environmental concerns. It would also be addressing it in a very inefficient way potentially contributing further to the problem.

Of course, the absorption of CO2 in the production of biofuels means their is a direct cycle but I’ll be honest and recognise I’m talking above my pay grade here. Perhaps someone else can shed some light.

My broader point is that the challenges posed to the aviation industry are almost unique in their complexity but that doesn’t dismiss the problems caused by the increasing demand for everyone to fly everywhere with no end in sight for a reduction let alone permanent end to aviation emissions.

[dr dre]

Extremists from either end of the spectrum cancel each other out and you are definitely at the extreme end of the CC hysterics spectrum.

Like I’ve said before, everything I’m posting is from NASA (the actual climate science part), CSIRO, the IPCC, the world’s leading scientific universities and institutes. According to your standards you must accept that they too are on the extreme end of the the climate spectrum too. You must accept a vast majority of climate scientists are, in your words, “extremists”.

The letter is suggesting that NASA not go to the extreme end of the spectrum and risk damaging their reputation. It does not suggest that climate science is false but that the extreme predictions are not substantiated.


There’s zero hard data or evidence in that letter. They reference zero peer reviewed studies. They do not give the name of one credible climate science who backs up their position. The actual climate scientists made their conclusions and those on the letter dispute them, so in fact they are denying climate science, as hard as they want to argue they are not deniers or skeptics.

It’s playing politics actually. No mention of how one of the leading authors of the letter, Harrison Schmitt, was a hardcore Republican politician, a party known for some pretty serious denial of science (if you want to see how much look at a bill Republicans in Ohio are trying to introduce regarding ectopic pregnancies and abortion - beggars belief).

They may be upset that funds going to climate research in their belief should go to space exploration? Whatever it is, it’s not because NASA is on the “extreme” of the climate change debate, there are groups advocating climate action to a greater extent than they are. The extreme position is those who don’t believe in the science, as was posted earlier in this thread 89% of Australians understanding human climate change, only 10% are doubters. Even that last figure in a way isn’t mecessary, all that matters is that 97% of the only experts who matter, climate scientists, support the science.

I hate to sound like a broken record but these are basic facts.

To deny the science you either have to accept all of these scientists and researchers, tens of thousands across the world, are either one of two things:
Grossly incompetent to an extent never seen before in history or
Engaged in a huge, worldwide conspiracy on a scale never seen before in history to promote a fake situation for their own nefarious reasons.

[Lookleft]

I'll leave others to decide if your take on the letter is valid. As to the last part of my post

BTW when will you answer the question about what you actually do for a living? I can help you frame your answer by stating that lookleft is a Jetstar pilot. dr dre is .a ........

you haven't answered it.

[Mk 1]

Lookleft - kudos for your position and revealing it (I'm envious), but how does that make you any more qualified to comment on the worldwide climate than say a retail worker, a banker or a bus driver? Is it therefore relevant what dr dre does for a living?

[The name is Porter]

Didn't lookleft say he/she has a BSc? And a bit of life experience as a Pilot. Maybe he/she is trying to determine if the good doctor is another Greta?

[Lookleft]

Lookleft - kudos for your position and revealing it (I'm envious), but how does that make you any more qualified to comment on the worldwide climate than say a retail worker, a banker or a bus driver? Is it therefore relevant what dr dre does for a living?

Thats my point,it doesn't but the good dr refuses to reveal what he does that makes him any more qualified than anyone else to present what is essentially his opinion and analysis of information that is largely on the web. He casually dismissed the letter from 49 eminent NASA employees and former employees who have a significant scientific background e.g. Harrison Schmidt who is a geologist and became an astronaut. This is a pilot forum after all so I wonder why he doesn't want to state what he does. If he is a pilot and feels that strongly about cc then he should consider resigning his position if he is to have any credibility with his stated position.

BTW no need to be envious Mk1, just be persistent.

[73qanda]

Dr Dre, can you please confirm something for me? I have a suspicion that there is a fair amount of misunderstanding going on on this thread. I am wanting to know if you agree with the following statement because it would help me understand what you think is science and if we disagree at that level.
‘Predictions of future global temperatures produced by climate models at reputable scientific institutes ( such as NASA) are scientific fact’.
Do you think that’s a true statement?
Cheers

[Stickshift3000]

I am wanting to know if you agree with the following statement because it would help me understand what you think is science and if we disagree at that level.‘Predictions of future global temperatures produced by climate models at reputable scientific institutes ( such as NASA) are scientific fact’.
Do you think that’s a true statement?

Not exactly sure what you’re asking here. Are you asking whether predictions can inform fundamental scientific principles?

‘Science’ involves asking questions and testing hypotheses to answer these specific questions. Predictions can inform this, however cannot absolutely replace accurate observations.

I’m a qualified scientist, and a qualified pilot. I enjoy the latter more.

[Asturias56]

"Predictions can inform this, however cannot absolutely replace accurate observations."

Observations are real but in the past, predictions are often not accurate (but that is along way from saying they are totally wrong) but help inform future choices - you can't equate the two.

My observation with a lot of the posts on here is that those who oppose the idea of CC fall into 2 main camps - the ones who don't believe its happening at all, and those who think it is happening but there is nothing we can or should do about it.

The vast bulk of the evidence, scientific opinion and personal experience tells me it IS happening. I can also understand why a lot of people feel their way of life, their comfort, their jobs, their hobbies are under threat if we adopt measures to try (and I say try as I doubt they'll work long term) but it looks like kicking the can down the road and leaving it to the future to sort out.

[73qanda]

I am wanting to understand how/what Dr Dre thinks. He or she said It isn’t the “so-called consensus”, it’s a scientific fact, as I explained to you in my previous post.
I’m trying to understand exactly what Dre thinks is consensus, and what is fact. I suspect I may be misunderstanding some statements that have been posted.
Clearly there is a consensus amongst many that global temperatures are going to rise because of greenhouse gas emissions, but it isn’t a scientific fact. I want to know if Dre thinks the predictions are scientific fact because if that’s the case our minds will never meet.
Cheers

[Rated De]

Aren't the airlines investing heavily in producing bio-fuels?

Bio-fuels are technically feasible, but commercially not viable.
Australian Airline Qantas purchased many millions of litres of bio- fuel . Admirable and "PR" worthy it may be, but the purchase represented around six weeks of Pacific transits, leaving the other 40 odd weeks powered by hydrocarbon fuel.

The problems are two fold:

Consumption of bio-fuel produces CO2.
(Peer reviewed research) Found to power just 10% of US ASK would require an area geographically the size of Florida. (The study considered the substitution of staple food crops to create major problems)


As such, with the incremental development in engine efficiency suggestive that we have approached a technological apex and electric aircraft fanciful, the industry is stuck with hydrocarbon based fuel.
Carbon offsets are a nice way of saying "we keep burning hydrocarbon fuel, but plant tress somewhere".

Whether or not the climate change is man made is most certainly not resolved.
That the climate changes is a given.
What it means for the planet and our place on it is difficult to answer.

[De_flieger]

This is where it gets hairy Dre. You say it’s scientific fact and mention that you have already explained that to us.....
It’s hard to see how the climate model predictions are ‘scientific fact’.
Just to make sure we are not misunderstanding each other, can you answer the following statement with a true or false, it would help my understanding of your position as the discussion continues.
’ Climate Model predictions of future global temperatures are scientific fact’ TRUE/FALSE
"Predictions of future global temperatures are scientific fact - FALSE" (I'm not dr dre, but thanks for your continued efforts dr dre!)

They are predictions, but based on observations. Observations are scientific facts, for example the observations by NOAA that 2016, 2015, 2017 and 2018 were globally the four hottest years in the modern temperature record ( last 139 or so years of accurate direct global measurements). Even if you decide that you want to restrict your era of measurement solely to the timeframe when satellites could measure global temperatures in the last 4 or 5 decades, they're still the 4 hottest years in the recent record. Predictions were made years ago, decades ago, that increasing the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would lead to a greenhouse effect creating an overall warmer planet, and we have continued to increase the CO2 levels, and observed a warming planet roughly in line with the predictions. Theyre not a perfect prediction, and have ranges of probable outcomes, but generally the results observed globally have been in line with what was expected.

How do we know that CO2 is involved? Effectively there's only two very broad ways the planet warms, either by having more solar radiation fall on it due to variations in solar orbit or activity, or by retaining more of the heat that is incident on it. All the historical ice ages and warm periods can be attributed to one of those things, or their effects combined. The planet's orbit is slightly elliptical, but this would result in annual cycles, not the observed decade-scale warming trend.. Similarly, solar activity follows cycles, but this cyclical variation in output is not reflected in the warming that has been observed - not that it isn't present, but the observed warming trend is beyond that cyclical variation, and at times in contradiction to what would be expected if planetary temperature changes were primarily driven by solar (sunspot) activity. The levels of solar radiation falling on the earth are not changing (increasing) rapidly enough to create the observed trend. Those are some scientific facts, based on observations, they dont predict anything in the future at all.

So something is happening to cause the earth to retain more heat. Basic repeatable physics experiments that any science lab or dedicated backyard experimenter can reproduce show that CO2 has a greenhouse effect, and predictions were made in previous decades that an increase in CO2 levels would lead to a warmer planet, which has been borne out by recent observations. Existing climate models predicted the observed warming trend years before it was seen, which gives them some validity. Based on that, with models that predicted changes that were later observed, a large number of climate scientists are predicting due to those models that a further increase in CO2 levels will lead to further warming.

[mjohansen]

Interesting words from a scientist working with climate dynamics and the climate models:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/pieces-of-junk-top-level-japanese-climate-scientist-rejects-global-warming-panic

Many of of the things he says other climate scientists have pointed out before (Curry, Lewis, Christy just to name a few).

[dr dre]

I am wanting to understand how/what Dr Dre thinks. He or she said
I’m trying to understand exactly what Dre thinks is consensus, and what is fact. I suspect I may be misunderstanding some statements that have been posted.
Clearly there is a consensus amongst many that global temperatures are going to rise because of greenhouse gas emissions, but it isn’t a scientific fact. I want to know if Dre thinks the predictions are scientific fact because if that’s the case our minds will never meet.
Cheers

Let's look at the meanings of words:
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity
In science, a fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence
Empirical evidence is the i (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information)nformation received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation. It is information that verifies the truth (which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim.

Now that we've got that out of the way, we can see that we are looking for empirical evidence to verify the science of climate change. There is mountains of it. All peer reviewed scientific measurements and observations from reputable scientific sources. From height of the tropopause (https://www.math.nyu.edu/~gerber/pages/documents/santer_etal-science-2003.pdf), upper atmosphere changes (http://www.ufa.cas.cz/html/climaero/topics/global_change_science.pdf), ocean changes (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5732/284.abstract), infrared radiation (https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm), longwave radiation (https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553), energy imbalances (https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1), changes in ice sheets (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/), sea levels, (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/) changes in CO2 (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/), spectroscopy evidence of CO2 wavelength capture, (https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm) energy balances (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012105), surface radiation forcing (http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf), and so on and so forth. It's overwhelming. Sen Malcolm Roberts would be over the moon at the amount of empirical evidence out there.

It's because of that empirical evidence that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (ie, the consensus) now state that human induced climate change is a fact, like NASA:

“The weight of all of this information taken together points to the single consistent fact that humans and our activity are warming the planet,”
The scientific method and climate change: How scientists know (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2743/the-scientific-method-and-climate-change-how-scientists-know/)

The IPCC:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf)

The US National Academy of Science:
Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions
Climate at the National Academies (http://sites.nationalacademies.org/sites/climate/index.htm)

And on and on and on...
Just like how hundreds of world wide scientific bodies hold the exact same position - The following are worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action: (http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html)

It isn't just a hypothesis, it isn't just a theory, it isn't just a guess, it's fact, it's empirical, it's proven. After going through the scientific method. I really don't know what else needs to be said.

[dr dre]

Interesting words from a scientist working with climate dynamics and the climate models:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/pieces-of-junk-top-level-japanese-climate-scientist-rejects-global-warming-panic

Many of of the things he says other climate scientists have pointed out before (Curry, Lewis, Christy just to name a few).

All those "scientists" have been debunked previously. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/) Many times (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-misinterpret-climate-change-research/). Of making basic errors in their work (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates). Curry has been debunked so many times she won't submit her work anymore for peer review, and instead only publishes it on her blog where she can be free from criticism.

As far as Nakamura goes, there isn't much about his book, because it was only published a few weeks ago. Unlike a lot of skeptics/deniers who latch on to something they believe debunks the science straight away, real scientists take time to examine claims. I would guess some scientists are analyzing and validating Nakamura's book (and their own work as well, because scientists should) and this will take time. The other scientists mentioned have been around for decades so plenty of time for their work to be critiqued. But I can already see two areas of his criticism that have previously been addressed, "water vapor " (https://skepticalscience.com/Evaporating-the-water-vapor-argument.html) and "aerosols" (https://www.pprune.org/# A complete lack of meaningful representations of aerosol changes that generate clouds.). Other scientists have acknowledged some of his criticism of their climate models as well, although they acknowledge what those criticism are, they state they are not the "magnificent breakthrough" (https://sciencenorway.no/carbon-dioxide-carbon-footprint-climate/aerosols-are-wild-cards-in-climate-models/1398997) that totally debunks "warmist lies" like a lot of hardcore deniers are waiting in vain for. This book hasn't caused any waves within the scientific community, as it (on first glance) appears to be just a re-hashing of the same criticisms that others like Curry have already made that have already been thoroughly debunked.

And another fact. Nakamura's book is just that. A book, not peer reviewed science, not a peer reviewed study. It wasn't published in a reputable scientific journal. It only gets mentions on the usual whacko denial blogs, including the fundamentalist religious website "Life Site News" you posted a link from that's got a story on it's front page telling readers to petition to stop movie producers featuring gay characters in movies. It isn't an unbiased scientific publication.


but thanks for your continued efforts


No thanks required, I'm just posting what the tens of thousands of credible climate scientists around the world are saying, after putting probably millions of hours of cumulative work into this topic. Thank them.

[Rated De]

At a bit of a loss...

Is Andrew David right?
Climate change is blowing out his bonus, err OTP?

[73qanda]

It's because of that empirical evidence that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (ie, the consensus) now state that human induced climate change is a fact, like NASA:
Thanks Dre.
I agree that the climate changes.
I agree that humans must have an effect on the climate.
What I’m not sure of is how accurate the predictions of future global warming are and I thought you had said that they weren’t a consensus but scientific fact.
So do we agree that the software predictions aren’t scientific fact?

[dr dre]

What I’m not sure of is how accurate the predictions of future global warming are


Scientists confirm the accuracy of temperature models by applying modelled results to historical temperature data, and this has shown to be accurate. (https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm)

There were already climate models made in the early 90’s (the first IPCC Report was actually in 1990). The observed measured temperature rise up til today that was predicted by these models have been within the range of those projections. (https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-projections.htm)

A study that looked at climate models since the 70’s and their results (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378) as well found the projections were accurate. In fact, a lot of projections were shown to be too conservative, and the actual recorded figures were worse than the mean prediction, at the upper end of the IPCC range.

So unlike Dexta in post #163 how hard is it to say "from our best estimates and assumptions, based on models built on what we currently know we postulate that this will happen in X years, but we must stress that this is only a hypothesis, we hope to get a better idea in future years"

or what you posted at #182 It will take decades to build a half descent (SIC) understanding of how our climate works

scientists are confident today they know how our climate works. Unlike what you just said (a rehashing of the old “the science isn’t settled argument), the over 50 links I’ve posted on this thread from credible scientific organisations (vs about a half dozen links from deniers from conservative lobby groups like the Heartland Institure and fundamentalist websites like “Life Site News”) have shown that science has a more than “half decent understanding” of what climate change is. It’s using the science and models that bodies like the IPCC, NASA, CSIRO etc make their policy statements and recommended actions. If they are confident in using them then you should be too.

You seem very hung up on the point that because scientists can’t measure and definitely observe climate and temperature with 100% accuracy at some point in the future and tell us what it is now then it is just a wild guess. It’s actually at quite a high confidence interval at the moment.

I’ve stated numerous times that basically every single credible scientific organisation on earth holds the view that “the fact is humans cause climate change”. None of those organisations state “the fact is humans are causing climate change now, but because we can’t measure what will happen with 100% certainty in the future and tell you now let’s just wait another few decades to see if it really will have quite negative effects”. Even rises at the lowest ranges of the models show that negative effects will occur with continual climate change.

I’ll restate what I posted previously.

Not a single person here would not start treatment for cancer if given a diagnosis by one doctor, let alone 97. There's no way a doctor can predict exactly what the cancer is going to do right, so why not wait until conclusive, observed evidence arises that the cancer is having disastrous effects on your body? Why not wait until the cancer has spread to your lungs and brain and you're coughing up blood and having blackouts, then we will have definite evidence and be 100% sure that the cancer is an issue.

[Willie Nelson]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

In days gone past there was never unanimous agreement that the precise ill effects of smoking where ‘fact’ different studies indicated greater concerns around different levels of smoking and different types of ill effects but nobody put it down to a conspiracy by the UN.

Tobacco companies with a vested interest used the differences in studies and the not easily repeatable precise outcomes of other studies to highlight so called doubt but the consillience of evidence always pointed to the long term harmful effects on human health. To this day some people still believe that smoking is absolutely harmless and will point to people like George Burns who smoked like a chimney and lived till 100 years of age but this does not dispute the evidence off the widely understood I’ll effects of smoking.

With reference to the NASA minority report, that was news to me and I’m happy to take it on board keeping in mind that NASA employs around 18,000 people, I don’t find it too surprising that there might be 49 former employees who take a different view to their leadership particularly if you take into account all of the current and former employees.

From the Guardian “Attacks on NASA by former staff shouldn’t be taken seriously” (You may well bitch about the source but I dare you to prove them wrong before you do)

Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science). Amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers. You can review the signatories for yourself here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/).

​​​​​So yes I will acknowledge there is some doubt from some very smart former employees of NASA as to the veracity of the anthropogenic consensus but you’ll have to forgive me for putting that to the side for now.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re - "And on and on and on...Just like how hundreds of world wide scientific bodies hold the exact same position - The following are worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action: (left=http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html)=left
It isn't just a hypothesis, it isn't just a theory, it isn't just a guess, it's fact, it's empirical, it's proven. After going through the scientific method. I really don't know what else needs to be said."

I wonder just how much WW2 affected 'Global Warming / Climate Change'..??

ALL of those bombs and the effect, in both Europe and Asia, including the A & the H bombs, plus those used for 'testing' in the various world locations......
I would have thought that 'somebody' would have thought of that by now....
But.....

p.s. I won't even mention the various world's volcanoes that spew forth every now and again........
Nor the fact that, in geological terms, we had an 'ice age' that is reported to have finished between 15K and 10K years ago, and the planet has been 'warming' ever since....
Thankfully....otherwise many of us (Nearly all of us?) would not be here...???

OVAH!

[Lookleft]

Willie have another look at that letter, the eminent signatories are not claiming that climate change is not occurring they are more concerned with NASA's stance on the catastrophic effect of climate change. My take on it is that they consider the science of the extreme cc hypothesis is not settled and that their primary concern is for the reputation of NASA. Some of those signatories established NASA's reputation so to just dismiss them as equivalent to kitchen hands suggests that a hysterical narrative is at play. Yet if you are a paleontologist who is able to secure a government paid position and spruik the hysterical cc narrative then you are considered to be an expert on cc! If you are a failed US presidential candidate looking for relevance post politics then you are considered an expert on cc and if you are an actor who has no scientific background then you are considered an expert on cc. Its not surprising that a significant number of people view with sceptisicm the claims of those who say that cc is out of control and it is only by changing the Western way of life that it will be fixed.

[George Glass]

Well dr dre , I have to confess a sneaking admiration for the grimly determined way you persist in your mission of converting the great unwashed into seeing the marvellous advantages of the scientific method. But I already get that. I got it when I completed a BSc in 1979.

But its not the point , is it ?

The over-subscribed float of 1.5% of Saudi Aramco next week will raise around $25.6 billion and value the company at $1.7 trillion.

Where I live , Australia ( I see you cryptically inhabit “ The World “ - Wow ! ) coal and gas exports amount to 26.5% of total exports valued at around $87 billion annually. Iron ore is around 15% and is often processed using , shock , horror , metallurgical coal. Then there is bauxite that is turned into aluminium by prodigious amounts of cheap electricity.

Does any of that suggest that fossil fuels are on the way out ? Then of course there is Jet A1 , diesel etc.etc. I could go on but hopefully you get the point.

Sooner or later this rather adolescent debate will have to progress to finding real world solutions.

Baying at the moon wont do it.

[De_flieger]

I wonder just how much WW2 affected 'Global Warming / Climate Change'..??

ALL of those bombs and the effect, in both Europe and Asia, including the A & the H bombs, plus those used for 'testing' in the various world locations......
I would have thought that 'somebody' would have thought of that by now....
But.....

Well, they did. There's been research done on exactly that topic, comparing global temperatures, considering the effects of solar irradiance, pollution, weather patterns such as El Nino and volcanic events and so on. The temperature record actually shows a slight decline in temperatures over a few years following World War 2, which is believed to be due to the broad effects of smoke haze and increased sulphate aerosol atmospheric pollution, which has a cooling effect but a bunch of other negative impacts such as acid rain, and which in later decades was greatly reduced as governments legislated for reductions in those emissions.

In terms of total CO2 emissions though, for the entire 7 year period covering 1939-1945 the global CO2 emissions were calculated to be approximately 34 billion tons (US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory figures). By comparison, the global CO2 emissions for 2018 alone were approximately 37 billion tons, so in one year last year there was more CO2 emitted globally than during the entire Second World War. The annual rate of CO2 emissions has gone up by a factor of more than 7 between the WW2 era you're looking at, and recent years.

p.s. I won't even mention the various world's volcanoes that spew forth every now and again........
Again, not something that climate researchers ignore. Forbes has an article that discusses this How much CO2 does a single volcano emit (https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/#579425595cbf) , which has figures of approximately 645 million tons of CO2 emitted every year due to volcanic activity in various forms (volcanic eruptions, mid ocean tectonic ridge activity and a few other things that are technically volcanic activity, while not being the traditional idea of an erupting volcano). That sounds like a lot, until it is compared to calculated level of human CO2 emissions in the last year, being approximately 37 billion tons of CO2.

Their article looks at the CO2 emitted by some of the very large, infrequent eruptions that make the headlines and people are aware of, and to match the levels of CO2 currently produced by human activity each day they point out that "It would take three Mount St. Helens and one Mount Pinatubo eruption every day to equal the amount that humanity is presently emitting.".

The US Geological Survey also discusses this here Volcanoes can affect the Earth's climate (https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html) , with similar figures and conclusions. In short, volcanoes produce CO2, however the global contribution of volcanic activity to atmospheric CO2 is around the 1% mark, give or take, depending on how various forms of volcanic activity are calculated and what year is used as the baseline for the human contribution. Basically, it's a myth that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity, the true figure is that humans produce approximately 100 times more in recent years.


Nor the fact that, in geological terms, we had an 'ice age' that is reported to have finished between 15K and 10K years ago, and the planet has been 'warming' ever since....
Thankfully....otherwise many of us (Nearly all of us?) would not be here...???
OVAH!
Again, this isn't a surprise to researchers. There's a fair bit of published work on this topic. Here's a reasonable read, published in Nature, a very highly regarded scientific journal, that looks at how the end of that last ice age was associated with increasing CO2 levels, with the temperature increasing following the rising CO2 levels. Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915.epdf?referrer_access_token=G4Wdwx6yCdJDt-L1TQfmktRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OKJnkv74AGCoyUL672-Tzx8IE8DrDelqhC97Zvh_7LVrhCxd8zdScV63bQFBAH1w9Yz3a48OvK1gt2_ 86p0c0Wkw_c4lqnHKA66N7I39Er4ueZ_3iAWp2GBK-9Lf8L_WdF6SD2BRrLv64lz2l5KiADtO50GY8x-rd81eWlXa3Vn3418iV0x2GVfAdRvG4V459oTlQWD157r9JL62rFTqnF&tracking_referrer=www.scientificamerican.com) It doesn't contradict the existing observations of what is happening; quite the opposite in fact.

[dr dre]

But its not the point , is it ?
Sooner or later this rather adolescent debate will have to progress to finding real world solutions.


The first step to solving a problem is admitting there is one. Have a debate on solutions to the problem by all means, but at the moment the issue is getting some to admit that the problem exists.

Some come around. The current NASA administrator was originally a climate change denier. Look what happened:

The former congressman from Oklahoma had long denied the scientific consensus on climate change and said in a 2013 speech on the House floor that "global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago."

In May, Bridenstine first announced publicly that he now believes human activity is the main cause of climate change.

“I heard a lot of experts, and I read a lot,” Bridenstine told the Washington Post on Tuesday. “I came to the conclusion myself that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that we've put a lot of it into the atmosphere and therefore we have contributed to the global warming that we've seen. And we've done it in really significant ways.”


NASA chief says he changed mind about climate change because he 'read a lot’ (https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/391050-nasa-chief-on-changing-view-of-climate-change-i-heard-a-lot-of)

[TimmyTee]

Ironic isn’t it, that we are talking about Sydney airport and whether it’s being impacted by climate change, while the entire time this has gone on, it has been covered in toxic smoke from unprecedented bushfires, that experts (ie scientists) told/tell us non-experts, will become more frequent and intense..

[Chris2303]

Ironic isn’t it, that we are talking about Sydney airport and whether it’s being impacted by climate change, while the entire time this has gone on, it has covered in toxic smoke from unprecedented bushfires, that experts (ie scientists) told/tell us non-experts will become more frequent and intense..

And all the greenhouse gases from the fires.......................

Enough to make Greta weep, but I don't see her over here peeing on them

[601]

The first step to solving a problem is admitting there is one. Have a debate on solutions to the problem by all means, but at the moment the issue is getting some to admit that the problem exists.

Some people must be living under a rock or only listen to the ABC or read the Guardian to form the opinion that "the issue is getting some to admit that the problem exists".

If you are talking about China or India, I agree. For the rest of the world I believe that it is acknowledge that CC is here and are doing their bit to reduce emissions.

The question is, what are YOU doing as an individual instead of shouting at deniers, politicians and whoever you think has an alternative view.

[George Glass]

TimmyTee, check out Captain Cook’s account of his voyage up the east coast of Australia in 1770. He had trouble seeing the shoreline a lot of the time because of the smoke. The black fella’s burnt it of routinely. They would be horrified at the idea of living in unburnt bush.

[Asturias56]

"Enough to make Greta weep"

no doubt she's on her way by sail - or bicycle.....................

[HabuHunter]

So what is the problem?

Is it “Global cooling” as touted by the IPCC in the 1970s? Or is it “global warming” as touted by the IPCC in the 1990s?
or is it “Climate Change” as touted by the IPCC in recent times?

Maybe its all these things.... because the climate has always changed. The world has been a lot colder in the past and the world has been a lot hotter in the past.... all without human produced CO2.

[unexplained blip]

So what is the problem?

Is it “Global cooling” as touted by the IPCC in the 1970s? Or is it “global warming” as touted by the IPCC in the 1990s?
or is it “Climate Change” as touted by the IPCC in recent times?

Maybe its all these things.... because the climate has always changed. The world has been a lot colder in the past and the world has been a lot hotter in the past.... all without human produced CO2.



The climate has always changed, and there have always been crosswinds at YSSY. So next time the crosswinds are 40kts, please continue to land. What's that you say? There are safety limits? Well bugger me, maybe that says something about the climate too.

[dr dre]

Some people must be living under a rock or only listen to the ABC or read the Guardian to form the opinion that "the issue is getting some to admit that the problem exists".


Nope. You can go back through this thread and see that there are plenty of posters disagreeing with the science, from skepticism of future predictions to outright mistruths about scientific facts. For an example this one right here:


Is it “Global cooling” as touted by the IPCC in the 1970s? Or is it “global warming” as touted by the IPCC in the 1990s?
or is it “Climate Change” as touted by the IPCC in recent times?
Nope. It is a myth that the scientific consensus in the 70s predicted cooling. The IPCC wasn't formed until 1988, so saying the IPCC was "touting Global cooling" in the 70s is downright false. (https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ipcc-who-are-they) It was more of a media invention. Even in the 70s the majority of peer reviewed papers indicated a warming trend, not a cooling one. (https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1) The reason a few studies indicated global cooling was an increase in SO2 levels (https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm) at the time, for which limits were enacted for environmental reasons. All of it is totally explainable.


Maybe its all these things.... because the climate has always changed. The world has been a lot colder in the past and the world has been a lot hotter in the past.... all without human produced CO2.

Nope. That has been totally and thoroughly debunked (https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm) for a while now. The recorded temperatures aren't the issue concerning scientists. It's the huge rate of warming that concerns them (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php), much faster than anything in history. All of it directly linked to human produced C02 (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/), which is which is directly linked to the extremely fast rate of change. (https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climate-change-0)

All of this is explained in a great visual format in this chart here. (https://www.sciencealert.com/why-4-5-million-years-of-fluctuating-global-temperatures-can-t-explain-climate-change-today) If scroll all the way down to the bottom of the chart you can see why scientists are concerned by the rate of change in temperature over the last 50 years or so.

[601]

Nope. That has been totally and thoroughly debunked (https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm) for a while now. The recorded temperatures aren't the issue concerning scientists. It's the huge rate of warming that concerns them (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php), much faster than anything in history. All of it directly linked to human produced C02 (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/), which is which is directly linked to the extremely fast rate of change. (https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climate-change-0)

All of this is explained in a great visual format in this chart here. (https://www.sciencealert.com/why-4-5-million-years-of-fluctuating-global-temperatures-can-t-explain-climate-change-today) If scroll all the way down to the bottom of the chart you can see why scientists are concerned by the rate of change in temperature over the last 50 years or so.

Dr Dre So instead of shouting at all and sundry who may have a different point of view to yours, what do you think is the correct way of arresting this CC?

Solar or wind or a combination of both will not solve the problem.
Solar or wind or a combination of both with massive storage, not piddly little batteries as in SA but pumped hydro on a massive scale, may solve the problem.
Or, dare I say it nuclear. .

What is it going to be the energy source that will stop the crosswinds at SY?

I get bored with all the shouting that the sky is falling without offering anything concrete to solve the problem. Frankly all this shouting it is a turnoff.

As for the 70s cooling, We did not have the web nor the scourge of "social media" to amplify what may or may not have been accurate. But in those days, the media was more about factual reporting that opinions. We had to make up our own minds from the reporting. It may have been debunked later but it felt real at the time.

[dr dre]

Dr Dre So instead of shouting at all and sundry who may have a different point of view to yours

I haven’t been “shouting” at anyone. I’ve just pointed out false statements presented by others and debunked them with linked info from scientific sources. That’s not “shouting”.


I get bored with all the shouting that the sky is falling without offering anything concrete to solve the problem. Frankly all this shouting it is a turnoff.

There are solutions out there to climate change, but the measures don’t sit well with a lot of people. We’ll collectively have to decide whether we pay the cost of them now or pay for the cost of not dealing with what science is telling us will almost certainly happen later.

As for the 70s cooling, We did not have the web nor the scourge of "social media" to amplify what may or may not have been accurate. But in those days, the media was more about factual reporting that opinions. We had to make up our own minds from the reporting. It may have been debunked later but it felt real at the time.

Well that’s the perception you got from the media at the time. The science was still being done. So to say “in those days the media was more about factual reporting than opinions” would be incorrect as theories about “global cooling” weren’t proven nor were accurate. So it was an “opinion” over “factual reporting” in the 70s. But now it’s pretty obvious that the credible scientists have come to this conclusion, and those are the people we should be listening to now, not media talking heads.

I’m not (nor have I ever claimed to be) an expert on climate related issues. All I’ve done is read a lot, facts and info from credible scientists. It’s all out there in the open. The facts, the data, the scientific method, the predictions and solutions to the problem.

For an overview of some solutions, check out this page from the Australian Academy of Science (https://www.science.org.au/learning/general-audience/science-climate-change/9-what-does-science-say-about-climate-change-options). Broadly problems can be dealt with by emissions reduction, sequestration, adaptation or geoengineering.

[Willie Nelson]

Willie have another look at that letter, the eminent signatories are not claiming that climate change is not occurring they are more concerned with NASA's stance on the catastrophic effect of climate change. My take on it is that they consider the science of the extreme cc hypothesis is not settled and that their primary concern is for the reputation of NASA. Some of those signatories established NASA's reputation so to just dismiss them as equivalent to kitchen hands suggests that a hysterical narrative is at play. Yet if you are a paleontologist who is able to secure a government paid position and spruik the hysterical cc narrative then you are considered to be an expert on cc! If you are a failed US presidential candidate looking for relevance post politics then you are considered an expert on cc and if you are an actor who has no scientific background then you are considered an expert on cc. Its not surprising that a significant number of people view with sceptisicm the claims of those who say that cc is out of control and it is only by changing the Western way of life that it will be fixed.

I’ve specifically not dismissed the NASA petition, I’ve acknowledged that there’s some smart people in group of 49. I guess what I’m trying to point to is what might otherwise be referred to as “false balance” I.e. a group of 49 former employees versus not only the current group of 18,000 employees but every other employee, scientist or not that has ever worked for NASA. It’s an interesting letter and I read it with some degree of surprise for sure.

At at some point the media stopped publishing articles of the medical research that failed to find a link between smoking cigarettes and it’s not that the information wasn’t any longer available or being produced it just stop being disputed by everyone who had a dog in the game in favour of the tobacco industry.

At some point you too will have to settle on a view one way or the other, maybe you feel that point is not yet, fair enough. To some degree I’m open to alternative points of view, that’s why I read the letter too, I just don’t find it ultimately persuasive despite the respect I would no doubt hold for the skills and expertise of those that wrote it.

[HabuHunter]

Dr Dre said:
”There are solutions out there to climate change, but the measures don’t sit well with a lot of people.”

Can you tell us what the solutions are?

[HabuHunter]

https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/European-Climate-Declaration-Oslo-18-October-2019.pdf

700 climate scientists have written to the U.N. to say there is no climate emergency.
It’s worth a read if you are interested in balancing out the debate.

[TimmyTee]

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/

“CO2 is plant food there can’t be a pollutant”. Wow.

[dr dre]

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/

“CO2 is plant food there can’t be a pollutant”. Wow.

Too true TimmyTee. There isn’t a single scientific fact on that petition. All of those 6 claims are unsubstantiated and contain not a shred of evidence to back them up. As far as HabuHunter’s claim of “700 climate scientists” signing this letter:

There’s 102 signatories from Australia. Going through the list I count maybe 1 who could remotely claim to be a scientist in a field somehow related to climatology. As for the rest there’s a lot of miners, mining company CEOs, shipbuilders, aircraft engineers, a state MP who is a cattle farmer, a journalist, a doctor and businesspeople. Or in no way, shape or form climate scientists.

You’re going to have to try harder next time HabuHunter!

[601]

There are solutions out there to climate change, but the measures don’t sit well with a lot of people. We’ll collectively have to decide whether we pay the cost of them now or pay for the cost of not dealing with what science is telling us will almost certainly happen later.

Well what are they?

Have you lobbied you Local, State and Federal Member on what is required?
Have you taken measures to reduce your reliance on grid energy?

I have posted before on this Forum what I think is required. . A combination of PV and wind with an output of at least three times that is required to power the country on a clear windy day. The excess power to go to storage that has a minimum of three days supply. This is to cover nights and days when the PV output is low or nonexistent and the wind is low or to high. Why three days? Look at PV output over a period of time and you will realise.

As for "shouting", maybe I used the incorrect word. But you obviously got my drift.

[Daddy Fantastic]

[QUOTE=dr dre;10634098]

I haven’t been “shouting” at anyone. I’ve just pointed out false statements presented by others and debunked them with linked info from scientific sources. That’s not “shouting”.
tQUOTE]

You have not debunked 1 single fact. You have not provided empirical evidence to support your claims. Websites like skeptical science are just complete hogwash.

The climate models used today have been proven to be wildly inaccurate. That is a FACT not a claim. The fact that the main champions and poster children for man made climate emergency are The Left wing people like Hollywood, Greta Thunberg and the left liberal media including FAKE NEWS CNN says a hell of a lot.

We on the right require FACTS....not a tug on the heart strings.

[HabuHunter]

Dr Dre said: “There’s 102 signatories from Australia. Going through the list I count maybe 1 who could remotely claim to be a scientist in a field somehow related to climatology. As for the rest there’s a lot of miners, mining company CEOs, shipbuilders, aircraft engineers, a state MP who is a cattle farmer, a journalist, a doctor and businesspeople. Or in no way, shape or form climate scientists.”
”You’re going to have to try harder next time HabuHunter!”


So of the 700 scientists you eliminate 101 of them... I supposed you used sourcewatch or skeptical science websites again to “debunk” these scientists.....what about the remaining 599?

You want to discount people because they are not “real climate scientists” (it’s the “not a real Scotsman fallacy”-look it up) but you are happy to rely on anonymous websites or other sources who are definitely not climate scientists.

I’m just trying to help you see your own logical fallacies and also try to ensure that both sides of the debate get a fair and rational airing.


For for others who are more open minded and interested in getting a bit of balance in the debate:

https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/European-Climate-Declaration-Oslo-18-October-2019.pdf

[dr dre]

So of the 700 scientists you eliminate 101 of them... I supposed you used sourcewatch or skeptical science websites again to “debunk” these scientists.....what about the remaining 599?
I'll refer you to the link TimmyTee posted above.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/

I categorized all 506 signatories according to their self-identified field of expertise. Only 10 identified as climate scientists, and 4 identified as meteorologists. (Together, that’s 2.8% of the total.) Signatories in totally unrelated academic fields (for example, psychology, philosophy, archaeology, and law) outnumbered climate scientists by two to one.


It seems at sometime the list of signatories jumped from 500 to 700 but it doesn't really matter. There were only 14 people on that declaration that could be counted as experts in the subject field. You said directly in your post #245 that "700 climate scientists have written to the U.N. to say there is no climate emergency." That is false. Far less than 700 climate scientists wrote to the UN in a document with no scientific data presented. You're either mistaken or not telling the truth.

I’m just trying to help you see your own logical fallacies
“There’s still a debate ongoing within science” is a logical fallacy itself.

also try to ensure that both sides of the debate get a fair and rational airing.
The debate in the scientific community was done and resolved a long time ago. (https://www.climatescience.org.au/content/why-experts-refuse-debate-climate)
Saying “both sides” implies that it’s roughly an even split between deniers and scientists, again this isn’t even remotely the case. (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99)

For for others who are more open minded and interested in getting a bit of balance in the debate:
https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/European-Climate-Declaration-Oslo-18-October-2019.pdf




Could you please point out where the peer reviewed studies or documents that back up each of those claims made on page 2 of that document (Warming is slow, unreliable models, CO2 is good) are located? Could you post some links to those from some credible scientific sources please?

[PaulH1]

Most of these 'Credible Scientists' are government funded. Most governments are very quick to jump on the CC bandwagon as it gives them the chance to raise taxes under the pretence that they are just trying to save the world. There are many independent scientists who have different opinions.

[unexplained blip]

Most of these 'Credible Scientists' are government funded. Most governments are very quick to jump on the CC bandwagon as it gives them the chance to raise taxes under the pretence that they are just trying to save the world. There are many independent scientists who have different opinions.

The notion that Govts are very quick to jump on the cc bandwagon is well beyond incorrect, it is a sickening opposite to the reality across the developed world in particular. The scientists are not gleefully taking government money in exchange for promoting a CC myth. They are utterly ****ting themselves, and wishing they could instead muck around with cloud seeding, terraforming Mars, counting penguins, or whatever else might take their fancy

[Asturias56]

As Blip says every Gov is running away from the problem as fast as possible - it will cost a fortune, it will upset all sorts of important lobbies, the voters will hate the restrictions put on them and worst of all it's so long term there is no electoral benefit to be seen for maybe 20 years.

Read this weeks "Economist" on Carbon Capture - it's not just a question of stopping or slowing future CO2 production there's a vast ocean of the stuff that from the last 50 years that needs to be removed. And it can't be done by planting trees - well it could be if you can find an area the size of Russia to plant up from scratch .

[HabuHunter]

Dr Dre said: “ “There’s still a debate ongoing within science” is a logical fallacy itself.”

This is not a logical fallacy.


Dr Dre said: “Saying “both sides” implies that it’s roughly an even split between deniers and scientists”

No it doesn’t.
And I see you’ve edited your comments regarding not allowing both sides of a debate to be heard. That was a telling comment which revealed your bias.


Dr Dre said: “There were only 14 people on that declaration that could be counted as experts in the subject field.”

This is a good example of the “not a real Scotsman logical fallacy”. It it goes like this: All Scotsmen eat porridge for breakfast.
But my Uncle is a Scotsman and he doesn’t eat porridge. Oh but he isn’t a real Scotsman!

You’ve whittled down the list of 700 scientists because they’re not “real climate scientists”. How do you define a “climate scientist”? How do you determine “an expert in the field”?
Realistically just about any well trained scientist, but especially those who have studied physics, mathematics, engineering, modelling, statistics, geosciences etc will be able to look at a climate paper and follow along and understand and form an opinion.
And then you link an article which has 6 scientists commenting on the letter but only 1 of them is currently working in the climate field.
You are persistent with your fallacies but you are not consistent!