so you are saying we arent allowed to question the film, we must accept every single word in it as the gospel truth
good grief you are just contradicting yourself at every turn
Climate: The Movie
- Thread starter berty3000
- Start date
- Status
good grief you are just contradicting yourself at every turn
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 8,971
- Reaction score
- 676
- Country
How about that Nobel laureate, how many climate science papers has he published? I'll give you a hint, just as many as I have.
John F. Clauser
John F. Clauser Credentials Background John Francis Clauser is an experimental physicist and member of the board of directors of the CO2 Coalition, a group that claims that both CO2 emissions and associated global warming would be “of […]
www.desmog.com
like John F Clauser, nobel prize winner
turns out he is a world renowned physicist that knows nothing about climate change
here are his claims debunked
John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
It’s a familiar story – the physicist who draws attention for declaring that climate scientists have got climate science all wrong. He (it’s always a ‘he’) was born before color television was invented, usually retired, perhaps having won a Nobel Prize, but with zero climate science research or...
skepticalscience.com
Sponsored Links
You're too scared to "say what you think", because if you did commit to anything, it would be "evidenced" only by conspiracy theorists.
Edit:
Should you trip yourself up and actually commit, you revert to type once the first request for evidence comes back..............
Last edited:
We have a bloke work for us, who has two Masters degrees, in science subjects.
By most measures, a clever person.
Not so clever though, that I had to pull him up for something that beggared belief.
He was looking for roof skylights; on the second floor of a four-floor building.................
Trusting well qualified, intelligent people is far from the worst idea in the world. But the problem with trust is that you need to know who to trust and picking a single person is risky. One Nobel Laureate isn't a good starting point.
In a more sensible approach you'd check all the experts in a particular field and ask them. Most of the time they'll get it right.
More than 97% of climate scientists agree global warming is mostly man made. As for the idea that contrarian theories aren't tolerated, that's *******s, there's loads of funding for that, they just can't find any science to support it.
In a more sensible approach you'd check all the experts in a particular field and ask them. Most of the time they'll get it right.
More than 97% of climate scientists agree global warming is mostly man made. As for the idea that contrarian theories aren't tolerated, that's *******s, there's loads of funding for that, they just can't find any science to support it.
So, you have little faith in (some) scientists, then how about the evidence of your own eyes? Look at the graphs, and just think how much money can be made by certain individuals and companies, by causing a climate panic.
"like John F Clauser, nobel prize winner
turns out he is a world renowned physicist that knows nothing about climate change
here are his claims debunked"
That's actually quite funny. You've quoted the blog of a rather opinionated psychologist (John Cook) who specialises in attacking scientists whose opinions differ from 'the consensus'. Again this pretty much proves the point that was being made in the film.
In a sense there is no such thing as 'climate science'. You could better describe it as 'climate studies'. The field is very wide and includes everything from the relatively few atmospheric physicists who deal with particular interactions in weather systems, to geographers and biologists who try to estimate what might happen if such-and-such a change were to happen. All of these are relatively lazily called 'climate scientists'. As a theoretical physicist, John Clauser is an exceptionally numerate chap who would have no problem understanding the underlying data of climate change, and can understand the statistics necessary to make sense of it, and is more than capable of evaluating the various papers written on the subjects.
Very very few of the people you will see interviewed as 'climate experts' are that close to the data; most are working on the basis 'we are told that the world's temperature will change by 'x'degrees, and we are then estimating what might happen if that were so.
There is no one agreed fixed position on 'climate change'. There is universal agreement that the world is warming. There is less agreement on why and how. In particular the sensitivity of temperature to the level of carbon dioxide is uncertain and the estimates of sensitivity have been reducing over time (i.e. CO2 has less effect than initially thought). The IPCC in its last report ruled out the most 'catastrophic' predictions as unrealistic. [For an insight into the current state of thinking on sensitivity to CO2 you'll find this article useful, and its quite readable for a numerate layman]
judithcurry.com
In short, James Clausen is more than capable of expressing an informed opinion on the published science in climate studies. He also has a right to do that, and if psychologists like John Cook wish to take him to task, then they need to do that by discussing the data and arguments he presents, not by attacking him personally.
turns out he is a world renowned physicist that knows nothing about climate change
here are his claims debunked"
That's actually quite funny. You've quoted the blog of a rather opinionated psychologist (John Cook) who specialises in attacking scientists whose opinions differ from 'the consensus'. Again this pretty much proves the point that was being made in the film.
In a sense there is no such thing as 'climate science'. You could better describe it as 'climate studies'. The field is very wide and includes everything from the relatively few atmospheric physicists who deal with particular interactions in weather systems, to geographers and biologists who try to estimate what might happen if such-and-such a change were to happen. All of these are relatively lazily called 'climate scientists'. As a theoretical physicist, John Clauser is an exceptionally numerate chap who would have no problem understanding the underlying data of climate change, and can understand the statistics necessary to make sense of it, and is more than capable of evaluating the various papers written on the subjects.
Very very few of the people you will see interviewed as 'climate experts' are that close to the data; most are working on the basis 'we are told that the world's temperature will change by 'x'degrees, and we are then estimating what might happen if that were so.
There is no one agreed fixed position on 'climate change'. There is universal agreement that the world is warming. There is less agreement on why and how. In particular the sensitivity of temperature to the level of carbon dioxide is uncertain and the estimates of sensitivity have been reducing over time (i.e. CO2 has less effect than initially thought). The IPCC in its last report ruled out the most 'catastrophic' predictions as unrealistic. [For an insight into the current state of thinking on sensitivity to CO2 you'll find this article useful, and its quite readable for a numerate layman]
How much warming can we expect in the 21st century?
by Hakon Karlsen A comprehensive explainer of climate sensitivity to CO2
judithcurry.com
In short, James Clausen is more than capable of expressing an informed opinion on the published science in climate studies. He also has a right to do that, and if psychologists like John Cook wish to take him to task, then they need to do that by discussing the data and arguments he presents, not by attacking him personally.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 8,971
- Reaction score
- 676
- Country
You are clever enough to answer this.
Is man affecting the climate at all, even if its not all down to man ?
...then look at the number of glaciers that've disappeared since 1985. The amount of sea-ice in the Atlantic. The loss of the ice shelf in the Arctic.
Look at the evidence of your own eyes.
And conversely, how much money is being made by the fossil fuel industry, and the disincentive to repair and mend: "planned obsolescence"?
Like the fact that it's becoming more and more like Atlantis in the UK, year on year, you mean?
The climate has changed hugely in even the last 25 years here.
No, he specialises in pointing out false claims and misinformation.
So your argument is: “if you bother to fact check what climate change critics publish…..that is unfair and what they publish must be the truth”
It’s not standing up very well as an argument, is it?
But John Cook has taken him to task in great detail by discussing the data and presenting arguments.
Clearly you didn’t read the article about which you are criticising
Here it again, please read it in full, then come back and debate the points made
John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
It’s a familiar story – the physicist who draws attention for declaring that climate scientists have got climate science all wrong. He (it’s always a ‘he’) was born before color television was invented, usually retired, perhaps having won a Nobel Prize, but with zero climate science research or...
skepticalscience.com
Where did this 'berty' come from anyways?
I wish Gant would learn to exert more effective control over his sockpuppets.
I wish Gant would learn to exert more effective control over his sockpuppets.
The climate has always changed throughout history, so what's new about glaciers melting, sea-ice, and loss of the ice shelf? LOOK AT THE ACTUAL DATA, the wider view.
- Status
Sponsored Links
