• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Human-caused climate change - what the scientists are actually saying

anotherneil

anotherneil

Active Member
Introductory post:

Due to popular demand, I will show what the scientists are actually saying about human-caused climate change, and I will show that they seem to overwhelmingly be saying that there is no cause for alarm (meaning no reason to stop burning hydrocarbons for energy).

I will provide links to video recordings in this thread. The criteria I am using is that I have to actually be able to see and hear what they are saying from their own mouths, and they have to be providing a talk, presentation, discussion, or interview where they are covering the impact of climate change due to human activity; the video recording has to also provide their name, and it either has to provide their credentials, or I have to be able to find information to corroborate that they are subject matter experts.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
anotherneil said:
Introductory post:

Due to popular demand, I will show what the scientists are actually saying about human-caused climate change, and I will show that they seem to overwhelmingly be saying that there is no cause for alarm (meaning no reason to stop burning hydrocarbons for energy).

I will provide links to video recordings in this thread. The criteria I am using is that I have to actually be able to see and hear what they are saying from their own mouths, and they have to be providing a talk, presentation, discussion, or interview where they are covering the impact of climate change due to human activity; the video recording has to also provide their name, and it either has to provide their credentials, or I have to be able to find information to corroborate that they are subject matter experts.
Click to expand...
Videos are not the best form of evidence. Why not provide papers? Often people that make videos have their own agendas and one can easily distort what a person says in post production. If you want to see an example of that you should watch "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".
 
anotherneil

anotherneil

Active Member
Subduction Zone said:
Videos are not the best form of evidence. Why not provide papers? Often people that make videos have their own agendas and one can easily distort what a person says in post production. If you want to see an example of that you should watch "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".
Click to expand...
Thank you for the inquiry.

It's not about being a video. It's about showing as directly as possible what the scientists are actually saying.

If you think providing papers is the best approach, I would encourage you to create your own thread like this geared towards papers.

These videos I will be posting are generally not going to be videos that the scientists make on their own; it will be an interview or a presentation to large audiences, and they are recorded by a separate source.

It's not feasible to carry out live, in-person talk by scientists on a forum, and the advantage of a recording is you can go back and review it as much as you want to learn from it or critique it thoroughly.

I think video recordings directly showing scientists speaking for themselves are the most reliable way of showing what they have to say for themselves.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
anotherneil said:
I'll start with:

Richard Lindzen - PhD (Harvard University); MIT professor:


Click to expand...
Oh, I see, you are not going by what climate scientists actually say. You are going after the few deniers. To be honest you would need to post just as many extremists as deniers. What you should be doing is posting what the average climate scientist says.

But luckily for use we can test your source. He has been denying AGW since the early 1990's:

"
In June 1992, a year after the Cato Institute conference, Lindzen signed the Heidelberg Appeal.[67]

He has criticized the scientific consensus on global climate change, claiming that scientists are just as liable to err when the science appears to point in just one direction. He drew an analogy in 1996 between the consensus in the early and mid-twentieth century on eugenics and the current consensus about global warming.[68] In a 2007 interview on The Larry King Show, Lindzen said:[69]"

Now I do not see any of his work where he made specific predictions. Deniers of science hate to be tested. But real scientists live to be tested. We have had over thirty years of climate change since then.

Unfortunately this graph cuts off at 2011
Let. It shows that the work of climatologists is fairly accurate, maybe a little high, but with what has happened over the last ten years they are now probably a little low:

1713294684997.png


Let's see if there are some more recent graphs.
 
The Hammer

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
anotherneil said:
Yes, they can be very boring, but I'm not doing this for entertainment or amusement; I'm doing this because crony capitalists want to put a gun to my head to force bans on burning hydrocarbons.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good idea to me.

But videos are too untrustworthy and fake, I can read the research papers and draw my own conclusions like an adult that doesn't need to be spoon fed.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Now this one is nice. It is based on work from the year 2000 where they have both forecasts and hindcasts. Computers can do honest "hindcasts". They can take a model and show what it predicts, even if we already know the answer. That is a valid way of testing models. But is also has forecasts. Please note that they have an envelope since there are quite a few different models out there. Some are too generous and some are too conservative. But what the average climatologists predicts is almost right on the money.

Where is the peer reviewed works of your guys? Videos are just opinions. Science is based upon evidence and results:

NASA GISS: NASA GISS: Research Features: Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

www.giss.nasa.gov www.giss.nasa.gov

1713295083519.png
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
anotherneil said:
Thank you for the inquiry.

It's not about being a video. It's about showing as directly as possible what the scientists are actually saying.

If you think providing papers is the best approach, I would encourage you to create your own thread like this geared towards papers.

These videos I will be posting are generally not going to be videos that the scientists make on their own; it will be an interview or a presentation to large audiences, and they are recorded by a separate source.

It's not feasible to carry out live, in-person talk by scientists on a forum, and the advantage of a recording is you can go back and review it as much as you want to learn from it or critique it thoroughly.

I think video recordings directly showing scientists speaking for themselves are the most reliable way of showing what they have to say for themselves.
Click to expand...
No, I could tell from your first source that you are cherry picking. You tipped your hand and demonstrated your bias. If they are climate scientists then they will have peer reviewed work on the topic. If they do not have peer reviewed works they are only scientists with opinions and since they go counter to the consensus, which can be shown to be accurate by comparing peer reviewed work to measurements since that time then their unsupported claims would be of no value in a debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top