Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

kzb

Members
  • Posts

    9,255
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kzb

  1. I think it is quite OK to put quote marks around "climate science", in context. It's a new area populated by people from disparate scientific backgrounds. A computer modeller, virtually ignorant of the underlying science could be described as a "climate scientist" if they are working on climate models. A physicist specialising in infra-red absorption/transmission could also be a "climate scientist". As could a meteorologist or someone who studies fossilised tree rings. Scientifically, any one of these four people would have hardly a clue what the other three are on about in conversation.
  2. I'm just trying to establish how you become a climate scientist. In actual fact there is nothing special about this particular subject in this regard. PhD's have to follow the grant money otherwise they are flipping burgers. It's a simple fact of life.
  3. Agreed, true scientists should be happy that consensus theories are continually challenged. You can't do that with climate science, not if you expect a scientific career anyhow. As an outsider I can see the science is not settled, without being a paid expert in the field. There is a big question mark over the climate sensitivity factor. The models consistently over-predict the temperature. All this is well known and can be seen by those bothering to find out.
  4. Granted, I knew that physics connection anyway. Also it does not surprise me that universities have recently started offering degrees called climate science. As GPS and I have said though, that is a recent development. But the next stage is how PhD physicists (or other subjects) then get the title of Climate Scientist. How does that work? Being a successful academic is all about number of publications and the amount of research grant money you bring in. If there is a tap supplying large numbers of research grants in global warming it will attract people and they will become successful. The taps supplying other areas of science are usually much less generous, so less attractive.
  5. No-one is paying me. I just like educating people. Or more likely I have a psychological defect which means I can't stand by and see incorrect stuff without challenging it. I should use my time more profitably to be honest.
  6. I'm simply questioning the assumption of automatic change, or that change is automatically desirable. Homo sapiens existed from 300,000 years ago until about 12,000 years ago, i.e 288,000 years with hardly any tech changes. A person's life would've been essentially the same as their great grandparents' lives.
  7. Why should I expect change ? The human race existed for many thousands of years as hunter-gatherers, with hardly any advance in technology, over timescales of millennia. Also, if something is going to have massive effects on peoples' lives, e.g. carbon zero, we have got to question it.
  8. I am not saying one subject is more truthful than another. I am saying science is a process, people present testable hypotheses which are either falsified or not. New hypotheses have to be treated with scepticism and tested to destruction before they can be accepted as truth. Even then they are not likely to be the full truth, and you have to maintain a questioning outlook.
  9. I'm saying a true scientist is always sceptical. True science hardly exists.
  10. So any science degree? Much of climate science is physics. So someone with a degree in physics can legitimately call themselves a climate scientist?
  11. Well whatever, the point is the ombudsman was not making judgement on the relevant issues. Only on name calling. John Gibbons is an environmental activist who deals in vindictive ad hominems, not scientific debate.
  12. Yes but we are trying to define what is a climate scientist. I don't think you can do a degree entitled climate science. So you get a degree as in your example, or maybe something else, and then what?
  13. Engineering is not really a science. It uses scientific principles, but true science is actually all about scepticism.
  14. The ombudsman was actually at great pains to state it was not his job to judge on the veracity or not of man made climate change. The complaint failed only because the ombudsman could not find an instance where the article had specifically called Bates a denier. It only associated him with deniers, which is not the same thing. They got off on a technicality really. He did imply that Bates could have a valid complaint under ageism.
  15. John Gibbons (the journalist behind the article being judged) sounds like a nasty piece of work, as well as having no relevant qualifications. Just Google him.
  16. Question: what are you doing about the property rentals you own with respect to carbon zero? (You've neglected to say whether you really wanted to double UK domestic energy prices as well.) What are your plans for installing heat pumps and cladding for insulation? Are you going to install solar panels and battery storage so that your tenants can have some security of supply?
  17. The professor, in common with many other scientists, is basically saying the science is not settled. Having looked into it a bit myself I can see this is true. I can make a judgement based on what I read. Even many "climate scientists" are now saying their models run too hot. They are questioning the climate sensitivity. Bates' own work found it to be 1 degree. The IPCC say it is likely somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees, but they carefully excluded Bates and other workers from their literature search who found lower values. Also, saying it is somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 hardly says it is settled.
  18. On the other hand, science is not a democracy. And, it is never settled, otherwise it is not science. Anyway, he says himself that he counts as one of the 97% of climate scientists. He's obviously more than a jumped up weather forecaster. He has publications in peer-reviewed climate science journals.
  19. I can critically evaluate material. That is enough, you should try it some time.
  20. So a bunch of journalists (with hardly a science O' level between them I bet) know better than a professor of meteorology?
  21. I was thinking of that Caroline Lucas. The current co-leader is indeed a mechanical engineering graduate. Worked in renewable energy consultancy -vested interest?
  22. Here is a true climate scientist, background in physics and meteorology, ex-NASA, have a look at the video. https://gript.ie/the-science-is-not-settled-irish-climate-scientist-speaks-out/
  23. Have a good long think about how you would get to be a "climate scientist".
  24. There's no reason I couldn't have been one. I'm not even sure you can do a degree in Climate Science. If you can it's a very recent invention.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.