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.
Peter Bernard Ladkin:
But he is wrong about its effect. Check out Figure 4.4 of Houghton's Global Warming: The Complete Briefing
What sensible person would turn to a student textbook when results of recent scientific research are being discussed - would such attitude not end up in stagnation and downfall of the civilization? ?
Nevertheless, I did run a web search for Houghton's Global Warming: The Complete Briefing and stumbled on a book review on Researchgate. Although recommending the book for students, the reviewer criticizes it for simplifications and the fact that "detailed controversies within the scientific community are glossed over in favor of the consensus view", leaving up several warning flags:
"So, for example, Figure 4.3 shows the same 1000-year reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature featured in the last IPCC report, with no mention that there are several other reconstructions substantially different from this one, including, for example, a warmer medieval warm period and colder little ice age. Similarly, where IPCC modelers drew a line in the sand in order to deal with tractable problems for model intercomparison purposes, this book also does not tread. Thus the chapter on climate modeling provides a nice description of IPCC enhanced CO2 scenarios, but there is no attempt to present process studies, paleoclimate modeling, data assimilation, or biogeochemical models.
... phenomenal book. On the other side of the coin, if a consensus textbook like this one is followed too closely, it presents the danger that some students, particularly those who do not pursue advanced studies in global change, will be tempted to memorize IPCC dogma rather than develop a healthy ability to think critically about the staggeringly large uncertainties in our understanding of the way the Earth system operates.
KEITH ALVERSON, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, Paris"
Need we say more - no wonder students cultivated on such fertilizer develop a lifelong IPCC-worship.
Check out Mann, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars; Oreskes and Conway: Merchants of Doom; Mann, The New Climate War; Stott, Hot Air. The names are all there. Also read what poor arguments they have mostly advanced.
I am sorry but I have learned long ago that those are the "alarmist heavyweights" not worth looking into; I have seen more than enough refutations of their incorrect assertions.
Instead, I can recommend a book "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters" by former Obama-Biden federal scientist Dr. Steve Koonin. He also declares his climate dissent on FOX if you prefer a video statement - "Research debunks climate "threat" narrative".
Peter Bernard Ladkin:
But he is wrong about its effect. Check out Figure 4.4 of Houghton's Global Warming: The Complete Briefing
What sensible person would turn to a student textbook when results of recent scientific research are being discussed - would such attitude not end up in stagnation and downfall of the civilization? ?
Nevertheless, I did run a web search for Houghton's Global Warming: The Complete Briefing and stumbled on a book review on Researchgate. Although recommending the book for students, the reviewer criticizes it for simplifications and the fact that "detailed controversies within the scientific community are glossed over in favor of the consensus view", leaving up several warning flags:
"So, for example, Figure 4.3 shows the same 1000-year reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature featured in the last IPCC report, with no mention that there are several other reconstructions substantially different from this one, including, for example, a warmer medieval warm period and colder little ice age. Similarly, where IPCC modelers drew a line in the sand in order to deal with tractable problems for model intercomparison purposes, this book also does not tread. Thus the chapter on climate modeling provides a nice description of IPCC enhanced CO2 scenarios, but there is no attempt to present process studies, paleoclimate modeling, data assimilation, or biogeochemical models.
... phenomenal book. On the other side of the coin, if a consensus textbook like this one is followed too closely, it presents the danger that some students, particularly those who do not pursue advanced studies in global change, will be tempted to memorize IPCC dogma rather than develop a healthy ability to think critically about the staggeringly large uncertainties in our understanding of the way the Earth system operates.
KEITH ALVERSON, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, Paris"
Need we say more - no wonder students cultivated on such fertilizer develop a lifelong IPCC-worship.
Check out Mann, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars; Oreskes and Conway: Merchants of Doom; Mann, The New Climate War; Stott, Hot Air. The names are all there. Also read what poor arguments they have mostly advanced.
I am sorry but I have learned long ago that those are the "alarmist heavyweights" not worth looking into; I have seen more than enough refutations of their incorrect assertions.
Instead, I can recommend a book "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters" by former Obama-Biden federal scientist Dr. Steve Koonin. He also declares his climate dissent on FOX if you prefer a video statement - "Research debunks climate "threat" narrative".
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
