If this survey is real the messages these young people are receiving are completely wrong.
We need to reduce our impact on our planet but CO2 is a complete red herring. The current ECS (temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is centred around 3°C (IPCC AR6). The 2°C will destroy civilisation is simply made up.
Aivar Usk:
Peter Bernard Ladkin:
Do note the word “prove”. I find it sad that we have people around who still doubt the results of a piece of Nobel-prize-winning physics from decades ago.
I would think that using the word "prove" was not proper in the quoted text;
The word “prove” is accurate. As an entity which has already admitted he cannot judge individual technical claims in climate science in supposedly-scientific contributions he has recommended, you must equally admit you cannot judge this issue.
when results of the climate models cannot be verified using actual data, such models prove nothing.
Nonsense, of course. A simple example. Suppose I ask each and every one of these models “2+2=??” I bet they are all going to give me the answer 4. Not only that, but, even if I can't do arithmetic and have no idea of the Peano axioms, I have very good reasons to trust that this answer is right. So it is clearly wrong, indeed nonsense, that “such models prove nothing."
Since you said that, I conclude you know little about models, so I see little point in engaging with you on issues of verification and validation and what “prove” might mean.
BTW, I might as well say that I am more than half convinced you are a bot.
Having said that, let me also say that bots can be very helpful. I wish I'd had a bot commenting on all the arithmetic I do on-line. It would at times have been very useful :-(
Regarding Nobel-prize-winning scientists in physics: I would recommend a short lecture by professor Ivar Giaever (29:35, 2015) - should we doubt him?
Interesting. You offer “alternative views” on climate science by various people with credentials you carefully enumerate. Who could have credentials better than the Nobel Committee? Yeet here, somehow, they don't count…………
Aivar Usk:
Peter Bernard Ladkin:
Do note the word “prove”. I find it sad that we have people around who still doubt the results of a piece of Nobel-prize-winning physics from decades ago.
I would think that using the word "prove" was not proper in the quoted text;
The word “prove” is accurate. As an entity which has already admitted he cannot judge individual technical claims in climate science in supposedly-scientific contributions he has recommended, you must equally admit you cannot judge this issue.
when results of the climate models cannot be verified using actual data, such models prove nothing.
Nonsense, of course. A simple example. Suppose I ask each and every one of these models “2+2=??” I bet they are all going to give me the answer 4. Not only that, but, even if I can't do arithmetic and have no idea of the Peano axioms, I have very good reasons to trust that this answer is right. So it is clearly wrong, indeed nonsense, that “such models prove nothing."
Since you said that, I conclude you know little about models, so I see little point in engaging with you on issues of verification and validation and what “prove” might mean.
BTW, I might as well say that I am more than half convinced you are a bot.
Having said that, let me also say that bots can be very helpful. I wish I'd had a bot commenting on all the arithmetic I do on-line. It would at times have been very useful :-(
Regarding Nobel-prize-winning scientists in physics: I would recommend a short lecture by professor Ivar Giaever (29:35, 2015) - should we doubt him?
Interesting. You offer “alternative views” on climate science by various people with credentials you carefully enumerate. Who could have credentials better than the Nobel Committee? Yeet here, somehow, they don't count…………
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
