On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:43 +0100, Java Jive <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote:
That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for
selecting only one side of the argument.
The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a
denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a
long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues:
p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be
unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate
change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly
man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some
intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.
You should also read https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-guidance-on-how-to-report-climate-change?utm_content=buffer3534e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
The problem with the BBC (and others) is that they keep on asserting
that various things are 'proved' and no counterbalancing opinions need
be cited. They may be honest according to their lights but to others
they seem to be one eyed.
--- snip ---
I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but
has many contributors.
I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials:
"Watts ... attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at
Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree."
It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a
source paper or to the data set that has been used.
How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific
Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or
Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed.
_Some_ climate research is formally published. _Some_ climate research >>>>> is properly peer reviewed.
AFAICT all of the mainstream research has been formally published and
peer-reviewed, it's only denialists who rely on unproven sources.
Unpublished is not unproven. There is considerable bias against
so-called denialists or sceptics.
Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here.
I'm not just writing for your benefit.
Read the source http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery
Even CERN has to be careful how they
present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a
case in point.
That's because Svensmark has yet to prove that his mooted cause of
global climate change accounts for anything more than a small fraction
of the observed changes - the fact that the controversy has persisted
so long with neither side producing data that unambiguously clinches it
either way, while the correlations that have been given are very low,
suggests that if any effect occurs at all it is very small and
insufficient to account for observed global warming, and insignificant
compared with the effect of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
My engineering degree was a four-year full-time course of study. Apart
from physics I had three years of engineering mathematics, two years
of pure mathematics, two years of applied mathematics and three years
of thermodynamics culminating in a cloud of simultaneous partial
differential equations. The only statistics I encountered was when as
an ofshoot I took the first year course in psychology.
How do you explain the changes shown in https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/Apart from that chris has shown
no interest to the sources to which I have already referred him. He
lacks 'the curious mind' which is so essential for this kind of
I don't blame hime, time on this earth is limited, and it is pointless
waste of it endlessly to go over the same old ground because others
can't accept the simple scientific truth that they're wrong.
The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our >>>>>> current climate change phenomenon.
How has it been distorted?
I agree, I should have written discounted.
It's not been distorted, it's been discounted, as I've already quoted on >>>> the article about Anthony Watts (note the references, a concept you seem >>>> poorly familiar with).
"Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in recent >>>> warming, and data collected on solar irradiance and ozone
depletion, as well as comparisons of temperature readings at different >>>> levels of the atmosphere have shown that the sun is not a
significant factor driving climate change."
Hoo! That's a put down.
No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the
*entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear
that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best
can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming.
Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism
which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find
his recent papers at the link which I have already given you http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery
And who funds the IPCC team and their supporters? Is there anyFollow the money.
That is *exactly* what you are doing - most denialism is funded by big >>>> oil such as Exxon Mobile and, as I've seen elsewhere, the Koch brothers: >>>
evidence they have an axe to grind?
In short, no!
You don't think any problems would arise if their flow of funds was threatened?
|Location:||Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK|
|Nodes:||8 (1 / 7)|