OP
OP
sk47
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2020
- Threads
- 32
- Messages
- 6,808
- Reaction score
- 3,157
- Location
- North Eastern TN
- First Name
- Jeff
- Vehicle(s)
- Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
- Thread starter
- #376
attention @RocketGuy3
"This is certainly an interesting story, and highlights that there is probably a bit too much parroting and fear of dissent in certain parts of the scientific community (I think this is especially true when it comes to western medicine and pharmacy). No one is suggesting you should believe everything you read or take it at face value... but this still offers no evidence that global warming is not very real and human caused. The evidence in favor of my side still abounds, and this article is just the story of one unscrupulous bit of research, not even counter-evidence.
Even the scientist here is not saying anything to suggest that climate change isn't real or didn't play a role on the fires. He's just saying he had to change the focus of his research to get published. He thinks that at this point, we need to focus more on mitigation than prevention, which is, sadly, probably true."
Hello; Interesting approach you have. A thing is man caused climate change has been cussed and discussed at length in other threads. Perhaps more on the content of those and new discussions another time. Perhaps do a search of my posts about climate change and address those comments. Up to you.
Back to your above quotes. Makes sense to me that scientist did not say anything to suggest climate change isn't real. His goal was to be published after all. The point is he understood there was a better chance to be published if he could wedge in something about climate change. That he admitted to doing so as an aid to be published is the unexpected part of the story. My guess being such has hurt his career.
A point likely being had he cast doubt on "human caused climate change", then his chances of being published, at the time , would have been lower to perhaps nil.
We also need to set some definitions. There is natural climate change which is known to be an ongoing process and also is known to have happened over all of the earths past. Those natural forces wax and wane to one degree or another. What you appear to want to do is to lump natural climate change in with human activities without any delineation of the two.
Humans can and do affect the environment. We may have some small affect on general climate. That I do concede. There are several distinct areas of discussion with regard to human activities and climate change. Let me pick one to start. What will net zero look like if we can get there next week.
Net zero carbon next week will not stop warming according to the models I have studied. The more common outlook two or four years ago was even at net zero today warming will continue for at least 50 years to 100 years or so regardless.
I have not studied any revised outlooks the last year or so. I predicted the unpleasant parts would be revised. Do not know if that actually happened. I suspected someone would revise the tale to imply net zero will have immediate positive effects.
Then there are the flaws in the climate models .............
"This is certainly an interesting story, and highlights that there is probably a bit too much parroting and fear of dissent in certain parts of the scientific community (I think this is especially true when it comes to western medicine and pharmacy). No one is suggesting you should believe everything you read or take it at face value... but this still offers no evidence that global warming is not very real and human caused. The evidence in favor of my side still abounds, and this article is just the story of one unscrupulous bit of research, not even counter-evidence.
Even the scientist here is not saying anything to suggest that climate change isn't real or didn't play a role on the fires. He's just saying he had to change the focus of his research to get published. He thinks that at this point, we need to focus more on mitigation than prevention, which is, sadly, probably true."
Hello; Interesting approach you have. A thing is man caused climate change has been cussed and discussed at length in other threads. Perhaps more on the content of those and new discussions another time. Perhaps do a search of my posts about climate change and address those comments. Up to you.
Back to your above quotes. Makes sense to me that scientist did not say anything to suggest climate change isn't real. His goal was to be published after all. The point is he understood there was a better chance to be published if he could wedge in something about climate change. That he admitted to doing so as an aid to be published is the unexpected part of the story. My guess being such has hurt his career.
A point likely being had he cast doubt on "human caused climate change", then his chances of being published, at the time , would have been lower to perhaps nil.
We also need to set some definitions. There is natural climate change which is known to be an ongoing process and also is known to have happened over all of the earths past. Those natural forces wax and wane to one degree or another. What you appear to want to do is to lump natural climate change in with human activities without any delineation of the two.
Humans can and do affect the environment. We may have some small affect on general climate. That I do concede. There are several distinct areas of discussion with regard to human activities and climate change. Let me pick one to start. What will net zero look like if we can get there next week.
Net zero carbon next week will not stop warming according to the models I have studied. The more common outlook two or four years ago was even at net zero today warming will continue for at least 50 years to 100 years or so regardless.
I have not studied any revised outlooks the last year or so. I predicted the unpleasant parts would be revised. Do not know if that actually happened. I suspected someone would revise the tale to imply net zero will have immediate positive effects.
Then there are the flaws in the climate models .............
Sponsored
