• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
3point14 said:
Are you saying that you'll accept the realities of global warming if I can prove without using computer modelling?
Click to expand...

Totally without yes

To a point where it will make me make a decision that is still a tad open to change, a bit of computer mixed in is cool, if within the chance of variance not being silly
 
I now see what you tried to do there

I believe in AGW

I am meaning CRISIS!!!!!

For record

Nice try though
 
The Great Zaganza said:
you are highlighting exactly the point I was making: that was no political will to do it right, so it wasn't done right.
The companies that failed to innovate because there wasn't any real pressure to do so might go belly-up now that they'll have to adjust much quicker.
Click to expand...

Probably true tbf

Sorry for misinterpreting your post.
 
cullennz said:
Totally without yes

To a point where it will make me make a decision that is still a tad open to change, a bit of computer mixed in is cool, if within the chance of variance not being silly
Click to expand...


Define 'silly'

It just looks like you've put that in to give you space to retreat. Anything you don't like you can arbitrarily call 'silly' and we're back to square one.

I don't know if the scope and effects of climate change can be demonstrated without computer modelling. If you don't trust such modelling you'd probably better get the hell off the planet because it's everywhere.

What's your objection to computer based work?
 
3point14 said:
Define 'silly'

It just looks like you've put that in to give you space to retreat. Anything you don't like you can arbitrarily call 'silly' and we're back to square one.

I don't know if the scope and effects of climate change can be demonstrated without computer modelling. If you don't trust such modelling you'd probably better get the hell off the planet because it's everywhere.

What's your objection to computer based work?
Click to expand...

I have no objection to computer based work. (depending on the type or chosen data, which is probably another topic)

Better than a brain trying to work it out, if you are going by trends. .

But it is only as good as the quality of the real actual data going into it.

I don't know what this is, so have a natural tendency to distrust groups peddling messages
 
uke2se said:
Denier gurus have long sowed doubt about computer modelling in climate science. It's a staple talking point.
Click to expand...

Climate extremists have long sowed reliance about computer modelling in climate science. It's a staple talking point.
 
uke2se said:
Denier gurus have long sowed doubt about computer modelling in climate science. It's a staple talking point.
Click to expand...

... because they would manipulate the model to have to fit their desired outcome if it was them doing the computing as a matter of course; they can't believe that real scientists wouldn't do that.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
you might think that was clever, but it was not.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

We are dealing with bog standard science-denial in this thread, and I would argue that it's off-topic. Even the dumbest denier has no justification for going after a 16 year old smart person.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
... because they would manipulate the model to have to fit their desired outcome if it was them doing the computing as a matter of course; they can't believe that real scientists wouldn't do that.
Click to expand...

I find it humorous you think both sides of the idiots don't manipulate data to fit their outcome

Scientists of all types rely on funding.

If you can show one side is "Extra special pure" in getting it, it would be impressive
 
cullennz said:
I find it humorous you think both sides of the idiots don't manipulate data to fit their outcome

Scientists of all types rely on funding.

If you can show one side is "Extra special pure" in getting it, it would be impressive
Click to expand...

you have fallen into the "fair&balanced" trap - so typical of people who think they are more unbiased than others.

What you fail to understand that on the one hand you have people with a direct economic agenda and deep pockets, and on the other scientists who are constantly self-policing: there is no equivalency whatsoever.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
you have fallen into the "fair&balanced" trap - so typical of people who think they are more unbiased than others.

What you fail to understand that on the one hand you have people with a direct economic agenda and deep pockets, and on the other scientists who are constantly self-policing: there is no equivalency whatsoever.
Click to expand...

This is one of those times when without giving too many details you might want to lose the "and on the other scientists who are constantly self-policing:"

There are plenty of scientist who write "Climate change" in their proposals knowing it will get over the hurdle to get funding.

I worked in a uni for a while.
 
cullennz said:
Get back to me when you know how funding works

Hint

You get it before peer reviewing their outcomes
Click to expand...


Yeah, and then, after funding, it all just stops and scientists get to spend any money they have as they like and nobody checks anything and everything published is just accepted at face value.

Oh, no,, hang on. That's absolutely not what happens.

Get back to me when you have the first clue what you're talking about.

Have a nice day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom