By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Australia’s top climate scientist says “we are already deep into the trajectory towards collapse” of civilisation

sundin13 on 15 July 2020
0D0 said:
sundin13 said:

Al Gore is a politician, not a climate scientist. The Guardian is a media outlet, not a scientific one. Both politicians and the media often have trouble accurately representing scientific consensus. As such, it is advised to handle with care when reading interpretations of the science by second hand, non-scientific sources, and further is is generally ill advised to use these second hand interpretations as evidence of flaws in the science.

Additionally, climate science is a fairly large field. There will always be individuals making fringe opinions that are contradicted by a large body of evidence. While "a New Ice Age" was all the rage in the media back in the '70s, even back in the early days of this type of science, a warming trend was by far the more common prediction:

Nobody here is sourcing science papers, so why should I?

It's always like this:

Paper says scientist said the world will end - See see, the world will end.

The world didn't end - That was just the paper interpretation of the scientist. No science's fault.

This is nonsense.

I mean, if you don't want to do the work to have an informed opinion, that is entirely on you, however it should be understood by everyone involved that what you are saying is merely an uninformed opinion and, again, not an accurate reflection of scientific consensus. To that effect, I'm not really sure why it matters what others in this thread are doing. Just because some people in this thread may not be making the best arguments, that doesn't mean that there is any issue with the science...

Lastly, why do you think fringe opinions invalidate scientific consensus?



Around the Network
0D0 on 15 July 2020
sundin13 said:
0D0 said:

Nobody here is sourcing science papers, so why should I?

It's always like this:

Paper says scientist said the world will end - See see, the world will end.

The world didn't end - That was just the paper interpretation of the scientist. No science's fault.

This is nonsense.

I mean, if you don't want to do the work to have an informed opinion, that is entirely on you, however it should be understood by everyone involved that what you are saying is merely an uninformed opinion and, again, not an accurate reflection of scientific consensus. To that effect, I'm not really sure why it matters what others in this thread are doing. Just because some people in this thread may not be making the best arguments, that doesn't mean that there is any issue with the science...

Lastly, why do you think fringe opinions invalidate scientific consensus?

I'm just sharing equal predictions of the past the didn't happened.

The same way this thread piece of news will most likely not happen.

All the scientists that published things that didn't happen were never corrected or criticised. But their piece of news created uninformed threads like this.

SpokenTruth said:
0D0 said:
Al Gore said in 2008 that in 10 years the ice polar cap would be gone. It's 2020 and it's still there.

Soon this thread article will be on the list of all climate change predictions that never happened.

Read all of them here:
https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/09/18/doomsdays-that-didnt-happen-report-compiles-decades-of-dire-failed-climate-predictions/

Among them, according to a Guardian article, Britain would have a Siberian climate in 2020. Other article stated that the Artic would be ice-less by 2018. All stupid predictions.

So all the climatologists, meteorologists, biologists, zoologists, chemists, geologists, physicists, glaciologists, atmospheric dynamacists, oceanographers, paleontologists, ecologists, biochemists, mathematicians, etc...from nearly 200 countries (some at war with each other) around the world that study and confer agreement based on their own independent, respective fields are all in on some grand hoax?

International Team of specialists find no end in sight to 30-year cooling trend in northern hemisphere

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/09/18/doomsdays-that-didnt-happen-report-compiles-decades-of-dire-failed-climate-predictions/

Now, don't argue with me. Please, pick up the phone and give a call the International Team of Specialists. Can you do that?



God bless You.

My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+

When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019

There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?


0D0 on 15 July 2020
SpokenTruth said:
0D0 said:

International Team of specialists find no end in sight to 30-year cooling trend in northern hemisphere

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/09/18/doomsdays-that-didnt-happen-report-compiles-decades-of-dire-failed-climate-predictions/

Now, don't argue with me. Please, pick up the phone and give a call the International Team of Specialists. Can you do that?

Probably not because that was 40 frikkin years ago. 

Got an idea.  I'm going to run my climate change models on modern supercomputers such as the 200 PFLOPs Summit IBM system at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory while you use the 160 MFLOPs Cray-1 from 1978.  Which model from those two systems do you think we should use today?

What? Are you arguing against science? Shame on you. It was a bloody international team of specialists. C'mon.



God bless You.

My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+

When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019

There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?


sundin13 on 15 July 2020
0D0 said:
sundin13 said:

I mean, if you don't want to do the work to have an informed opinion, that is entirely on you, however it should be understood by everyone involved that what you are saying is merely an uninformed opinion and, again, not an accurate reflection of scientific consensus. To that effect, I'm not really sure why it matters what others in this thread are doing. Just because some people in this thread may not be making the best arguments, that doesn't mean that there is any issue with the science...

Lastly, why do you think fringe opinions invalidate scientific consensus?

I'm just sharing equal predictions of the past the didn't happened.

The same way this thread piece of news will most likely not happen.

All the scientists that published things that didn't happen were never corrected or criticised. But their piece of news created uninformed threads like this.

While it is fair to hold a healthy degree of skepticism over claims that you see, the mere fact of past false claims by different individuals does little to disprove anything, and again, absolutely nothing to challenge the ground that the scientific consensus stands on. I won't argue with you criticizing fringe claims, however, I will argue with you if you say something to the effect of "this fringe claim from 50 years ago is evidence that the scientific consensus is wrong".



Zoombael on 15 July 2020
0D0 said:
sundin13 said:

Al Gore is a politician, not a climate scientist. The Guardian is a media outlet, not a scientific one. Both politicians and the media often have trouble accurately representing scientific consensus. As such, it is advised to handle with care when reading interpretations of the science by second hand, non-scientific sources, and further is is generally ill advised to use these second hand interpretations as evidence of flaws in the science.

Additionally, climate science is a fairly large field. There will always be individuals making fringe opinions that are contradicted by a large body of evidence. While "a New Ice Age" was all the rage in the media back in the '70s, even back in the early days of this type of science, a warming trend was by far the more common prediction:

Nobody here is sourcing science papers, so why should I?

It's always like this:

Paper says scientist said the world will end - See see, the world will end.

The world didn't end - That was just the paper interpretation of the scientist. No science's fault.

This is nonsense.

Mh. You're saying your science is right. What if it isn't? Why believe your science, but not the other science?



Hunting Season is done...

Around the Network
NyanNyanNekoChan on 15 July 2020

Don't worry guys, even if the climate goes all Venus on us, I'm sure our lord and savior Elon Musk will transport us all to a wonderful red new paradise, with barely any oxygen and sub-zero temperatures.



Immersiveunreality on 15 July 2020
NyanNyanNekoChan said:
Don't worry guys, even if the climate goes all Venus on us, I'm sure our lord and savior Elon Musk will transport us all to a wonderful red new paradise, with barely any oxygen and sub-zero temperatures.

Indeed,and we only have to wear spacesuits to not die there until we can do something what could be considered terraforming in the next 100000 years.!!

Such a convenience.:p (just adding on the joke here)

Besides that,i'm a bit of a fanboy of spacex because it is rare to have a human ''pioneer'' in the days of extreme capitalism.



Zoombael on 15 July 2020
NyanNyanNekoChan said:
Don't worry guys, even if the climate goes all Venus on us, I'm sure our lord and savior Elon Musk will transport us all to a wonderful red new paradise, with barely any oxygen and sub-zero temperatures.

Also, Mars' ice caps are fully intact. It means good climate.



Hunting Season is done...

Immersiveunreality on 16 July 2020

That link leads to an article made from an article made from the source material that talks about an idea,a theory.
I really dislike all this deforming by journalists.



0D0 on 16 July 2020
SpokenTruth said:
0D0 said:

What? Are you arguing against science? Shame on you. It was a bloody international team of specialists. C'mon.

No, I'm arguing against using older scientific models to suggest that modern models are wrong.  The fact you don't understand that is telling.  It means you don't want a scientific truth, just whatever truth you want.

hahaha, I don't want scientific truth. hohoho how monkey I am, right?

Yesterday's scientific model is old today.

Today's scientific model will be old tomorrow.

There are exemples of science of yesterday that is wrong today.

Science of today might be wrong tomorrow.

In 10 years, I'll be here on this topic pointing out that this piece of news didn't materialize. And you will be here saying that I'm talking about old scientific models and journalistic manipulation. That's because YOU, my dear, just want whatever truth you want. :D :D :D :D



God bless You.

My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+

When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019

There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?