Professor quits job at university over "craziness" in climate science

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

As long as scientific research is dependent on funding...we can not trust it blindly.

So don't trust blindly. I don't. But without "funding" there would be no research. So now what?

When 97 % number came up. That was the deal breaker.

Do you know what that number actually represents? Forget the hyperbole about it. On both sides.

a reply to: Phage

So don't trust blindly. I don't. But without "funding" there would be no research. So now what?

It's not so much about funding...of course you need it..it's about the terms of funding, and it falls on the state to define that. In the end...it comes down to science being unable to be truly free to pursue truth where ever it may lead us. And that's a burden from my corner. Because nothing really matters but the truth.

So my opinion is...scientific research should have a finance pool independent of any state or private interests. How to go about achieving that...I have no idea.

Do you know what that number actually represents? Forget the hyperbole about it. On both sides.

Honestly...to me it represents a number pulled out of the hat with a specific purpose. The purpose is to assert authority on the issue. 97 is especially suspect...since it's...you know..not a 100 %...no...that would be suspicious. Better make it close to that as if to appear that there is insignificant difference of opinion which should be expected in any normal human devised process, but still so insignificant as not to allow truly diverging opinions. It might have worked better I think if they said something like ...60-70 % scientists agree on this and that. That sounds more scientific to me.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

It's not so much about funding...of course you need it..it's about the terms of funding, and it falls on the state to define that.

Does all funding come from "the state?"

Honestly...to me it represents a number pulled out of the hat with a specific purpose.

So, you don't know the source of the number.

a reply to: Phage

Does all funding come from "the state?"

whether private direct funding by a corp or individual or state...matters not. So few of us humans are humanitarian. If you provide money for something...97 % of people want something in return for it.

So, you don't know the source of the number.

I red a bit on it...but not recently. Has something changed ?

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I red a bit on it...but not recently. Has something changed ?

No. Including the error of this:

There is no such consensus in any of the branches of science on any scientific theory.

The 97% number comes from one particular poll of climate scientists. There are a few others, and the number ranges up from 90%. If you had bothered to look into it a bit you might know that.

Though I don't know of any polls (maybe you could help) but I'm pretty sure that 90% of physicists agree with the basis of the standard model. I'm pretty sure that 90% of astrophysicists agree with the basis of Einstein's theory.

But they are, of course, funded. So...

a reply to: Phage

Though I don't know of any polls (maybe you could help) but I'm pretty sure that 90% of physicists agree with the basis of the standard model. I'm pretty sure that 90% of astrophysicists agree with the basis of Einstein's theory.

It has taken us a century to come to these percentages. Decades of conflict within the science communities. And still...even to this day...there are opponents. Real scientists.

a reply to: Phage
Late reply: I was working all day
I am not a environmentalist or environmental scientist. I do, however, having grad school training in the scientific production, analysis, and application of research.

CO2 being higher can cause retention of more heat, at lower levels in the atmosphere especially, like where we live. But, it will not prevent the Earth from cooling, and it certainly will not cause it to overheat.

Next point/discussion: Mars is farther away from the sun, and Venus is closer too.

Next point: So, you need to look beyond one million years. We humans are not the be all, end all. CO2 levels indeed have been much higher in the past. During the dinosaur era, the CO2 levels were, depending on what studies one reads, about 5 times higher than today. Most people tend to have small scale thinking, so I wouldn't fault you on this one.

Your reasoning is also fallacious. You essentially say that CO2 levels in the past were higher, and humans did not exist. OK. Then, you ask questions that imply that, if CO2 levels rise today, humans will not exist. ?? really? So what, if CO2 goes up, then we are all just going to drop dead? If you really want to lower the CO2 level, try and stop exhaling and see what happens.

OK, last, you mention the cycles. Some would say the cycles are theory. Just so you know, if you don't already. But, the Earth cools and heats over tens of thousands of years and even over millions and hundreds of millions of years. What we mostly here today are temperature changes since the industrial revolution. Typical human small thought thinking in which one fails to comprehend things on a greater scale. This is one thing that makes astrophysicists so special.

a reply to: rxh0272

Then, you ask questions that imply that, if CO2 levels rise today, humans will not exist.

No.

If you really want to lower the CO2 level, try and stop exhaling and see what happens.

Respiration is carbon neutral. The CO2 we exhale comes from the food we eat, which gets it out of the atmosphere. It produces no net change. Burning carbon which was sequestered many, many millions of years ago does produce a net change. It causes CO2 concentrations to increase.

OK, last, you mention the cycles.

Actually, you are the one who brought it up.

a reply to: Phage

Try and not have the curtain pulled over your eyes. So, with your reasoning, life on Earth, the CO2 levels, etc. are all so important for the last 70 years, which is actually inaccurate, that nothing else matters? Come on.
And, let me guess, cow farts are pollution, right?
And what is this, the vast majority of climatologists? What are you even talking about? The majority: 50.01 versus 49.99. What exactly is the "vast majority?" Also, I would disagree that the majority would agree with what you said.

What aspect of the sun has changed? First, I presume you are asking if the sun has changed, and if so, what the change was, as your questions is rather nonsensical.

The sun does indeed change. Don't be foolish. The sun has multiple cycles and changes it goes through, just like every other star. It's not something I could just spell out herein. One would have to go and research it.

a reply to: rxh0272

So, with your reasoning, life on Earth, the CO2 levels, etc. are all so important for the last 70 years, which is actually inaccurate, that nothing else matters? Come on.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

And, let me guess, cow farts are pollution, right?

Well, they do contain methane. But actually cow burps are a greater source.

It's not something I could just spell out herein. One would have to go and research it.

You mean you haven't? Then how can you claim that it may be a cause of the current warming trend? Go for it. Go find out how much the Sun's output of energy has changed over the past 100 years.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I am not saying whether warming or not. I agree with you on that.
I agree with the period of observation being too short, and it is also one of the reasons I mentioned the cycles. I would say that most people I meet tend to have limited time period thinking/reasoning.

The sort=term spikes: Yes, I agree. But, it does not stop fear mongers from trying to use this against the population.

a reply to: Phage

Well, you are the one who mentioned the 70 year period. Most of the arguments I come across tend to try and show that, since the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have spiked and Earth's temperature has shot up, and because of that we are all going to die. I mean come on. Where did you get 70 years from?

Good God. Look, if you really want to know something, go and look it up. I am not here to teach you. If you want to be taught, sign up at a university.

Some of the topics being discussed are too lengthy to discuss. And, because you obviously lack any scientific training or understanding, this discussion is limited.

a reply to: rxh0272

I am not saying whether warming or not.

Didn't you say this:

Well, we know that global warming is real, but it is not caused, at least alone, by human activity.

Yes. It seems you did:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Most of the arguments I come across tend to try and show that, since the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have spiked and Earth's temperature has shot up, and because of that we are all going to die.

I haven't seen anyone say we are all going to die.

Look, if you really want to know something, go and look it up.

I have. You have not.

a reply to: Phage

You misunderstood the point.

Also, respiration and breathing are not the same thing. Also, it's could only be neutral relative to other variables, e.g., rain forest stability. So, what exactly do you mean?

a reply to: Phage

You wanted to know what aspect of the sun has changed. I said to go and look it up.

Yes. I said that. Global warming is real. The quote doesn't say that the Earth is warming now. Actually, many studies I have read conclude that the Earth is actually in a cooling phase right now.

I have seen people say, using the runaway climate nonsense, and using the slippery slope fallacious reasoning style, that the higher CO2 levels will cause a runaway climate that will destroy ecosystems and bla bla bla.

Finally, I am not going to sit here and tell you how the sun changes over time. And, it's not as though I know all the changes it goes through, or that anyone else does either. I am simply saying that if you want to know what aspect of the sun has changed, go and look it up. Heck, you can even check it with NASA.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I agree with all of your points.

a reply to: Phage

Respiration is carbon neutral. The CO2 we exhale comes from the food we eat, which gets it out of the atmosphere. It produces no net change. Burning carbon which was sequestered many, many millions of years ago does produce a net change. It causes CO2 concentrations to increase.

Phage, I am going to call you on this every time you try and use it. Breathing is not carbon-neutral. It may be offset by the natural photosynthetic processes that precede it, but that does not make it carbon-neutral. The best you can accurately say is that the carbon cycle is carbon-neutral, not breathing.

TheRedneck

a reply to: rxh0272

Grad-level research engineer here.

I just wanted to say you make excellent points and I really enjoy your scientific approach in your posts. It's a breath of fresh (carbon-dioxide containing) air to me.



TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: rxh0272

Grad-level research engineer here.

I just wanted to say you make excellent points and I really enjoy your scientific approach in your posts. It's a breath of fresh (carbon-dioxide containing) air to me.

Hm, yes, scientific approach like this:

originally posted by: rxh0272
a reply to: Phage
And what are you even trying to talk about. Sequestration? Don't be stupid. Where the hell did the carbon come from to begin with? Moron.