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.
Please do remember that truth has now been redefined. It now means that which a person believes, whether or not it is correct!
Of course, both graphs cannot be correct, but one was produced by a politician. That says it all. The best solution would be to replace all politicians with Engineers.
I see what you mean, Andy.
I post a simple piece of information, and the naysayers all come out of their holes to say it's bunkum. Lots and lots of them.
It would be nice if one of the most prominent engineering societies could run a WWW site on which it is possible to publish info about and discuss climate science, possibly the most socially important science at the moment. On which it was possible to refer to the IPCC scientific summaries, possibly the best summaries of the state of the science of any science, and well-regarded textbooks on climate science, without Twitter-like denunciations from the Heartland-Hangers-On.
I don't want to discuss “climate science” with people who can only push URL's and cannot actually formulate an assertion in climate science which they are prepared to argue for in any reasonable fashion.
Peter, I do not understand your position. On one hand, you are saying that NONE of us produce any proof of our statements, whereas we do with easily available information produced by real scientists, and yet you refuse to do the same, simply telling us we need to read the IPCC papers, particularly the political summary for policymakers. You are obviously a “climate change is manmade” advocate, with the addition that the most significant part of CO2 increases is from fossil fuels. However, even the IPCC offers zero evidence of either of these claims. Do you not see this as the biggest hole in your own position? This is from two theses, the first being the ridiculous assertion that correlation means causation, although the correlation claimed has a time offset of some 600 years in the WRONG direction (in other words temperature leads to CO2 increase). Secondly, there is also negative proof in the form of C12/C14 ratios that the majority of CO2 increase is from fossil fuels, which actually have a different ratio to the atmosphere.
I, and probably others, would find it very useful if you would provide the proof I have miss-defined your position, and rather than just saying we are following Heartland, actually reference either the IPCC documents or the underlying scientific papers that attempt to answer these two points.
If you find that you cannot, I suggest that you fully apologise to the members of this forum, whom you have berated and abused in fairly significant ways. I and others are very happy to discuss actual science, but not IPCC political documents from a political organisation whose money comes from the UN to demonstrate man-made climate change, with the underlying aim to redistribute serious money to damage the developed countries.
It is absolutely obvious too that the Green agenda being applied to the UK will make no measurable difference, even though the £4.2 Trillion costs to upgrade the entire electricity system, along with all the other simply astronomical costs for space heating and electric transport, will bankrupt everyone in the UK, and completely destroy our industry. Therefore you must consider the purpose of your message, exactly what is behind it and what do you want to achieve?
ARE:
“Of course, both graphs cannot be correct, but one was produced by a politician. That says it all. The best solution would be to replace all politicians with Engineers.”
Concur.
Err, I seem to recall that the Politbureau of both the Soviet Union and Maoist China -even China today - were/are heavily populated with engineers. I'm not sure we have a good track record in government?
Peter, do you actually read what people post?
I post a simple piece of information, and the naysayers all come out of their holes to say it's bunkum. Lots and lots of them.
You posted a couple of URLs to the increasing global CO2 output. No one challenged the increase in CO2 output.
Jon noted that this does not appear to correlate with global temperature rise. Is that calling your URL’s bunkum or is it valid discussion?
Some global temperature graphs from various ‘official’ resources were then displayed. The possibly more politically based one from NASA Climate Change appeared to show an accelerating increase in global temperature. The NASA GISS v4 monthly graph and the UAH graph both showed flat, possibly falling temperatures. Where does this say that your CO2 output URLs are bunkum?
I don’t want to discuss “climate science” with people who can only push URL’s and cannot actually formulate an assertion in climate science which they are prepared to argue for in any reasonable fashion.
Where have you been formulating arguments and defending? All I have seen so far from you is the standard dogma.
Ah, a refusal to respond to a number of posts, none of which is abusive in any way.
Roger is not the slightest bit abusive, and you keep refusing to engage in any proper discussion of facts or data. You probably don't realise that there are very many, very well-informed, and clever people who are members of the IET, and some of them are prepared to try to educate using the forums. You have no idea the background of posters, in many cases you may be very surprised with what they do, have done and know, and study for a lifetime.
You rudely called one poster a BOT, so a little analysis of you might be fair. You are probably involved in some kind of software, you read the Guardian, you do not know much pure science possibly an A level, have no knowledge of thermodynamics, and probably have leftish political views.
My analysis may not be accurate, but the stance you take implies all of these. No abuse intended.
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
