Are we, as the IET, declaring a climate emergency?
It's really that simple a topic, should we be adding our professional voice to the growing number of countries and organisations declaring such an event, to bring better awareness of the threat of the climate crisis and to encourage more discussion in addressing it!
I think I should make a comment on computer models, particularly electrical/electronic ones. Those not in these industries may not understand these or the reasons for them, but that is not the point. They have been under development for probably all my career (more than 40 years) and I have used many. 30 years ago poor modelling performance bankrupted a company I worked for, a design didn't work as predicted and was useless and unmodifiable (it was inside a chip). Now the same industry models are almost perfect, and the reason is simple: the errors were analysed and corrected, the results were made to match reality from first principles, with understanding.
Climate models, and to a slightly lesser extent weather models, are much less complex than these engineering models, yet it seems that the owners, writers and users are not prepared to accept that they are not correctly predictive, and as a consequence modify them until they are. I have been trying for years to get a climate modeller to feed in the starting parameters for say 1930, and see the result, and properly compare it with the actual observed outcome. Saying they don't want to is far too mild, and the excuses as to why not are myriad and simply unscientific. Even they know why they don't want to do this, and the answer will be like the early engineering models, they are nothing like good enough!
The reasons for this are simple, there is no money in a model which does not predict excessive warming or some other disaster. To date the best fitting to reality is a Russian one. The IPCC have a bunch of models and the latest mathematically ridiculous thing they are doing is averaging the results to give an "accurate" answer! I think that anyone with any maths knowledge can see that this is totally unsound, and cannot be supported in any way. That is where your "doom" numbers are coming from, unlike modern aircraft designs where even tiny errors have to be found and removed. Would you fly in a climate model, I wouldn't?
I do see your point.
Maybe there's work to do then in connecting with suitable parties who have access to the model data and running some of these analyses?
I suppose I'm personally just sceptical (I'm not saying it can't happen though), that so many scientists and engineers worldwide are coming to the same conclusion regarding the climate but they're working with data we're saying is not fully scrutinised.
The problem is not that there are many who disagree, but that they are not able to comment due to ENORMOUS political pressure from many areas of power. Many have been sacked from Universities for even mentioning this and you just try to get a proper scientific paper published in any of the "big" journals, it is immediately ridiculed for not following "the consensus view", and peer reviewed into oblivion. You will of course immediately understand that none of this is "Science" as we understand it, the entire process has been broken.
An example of blatant ghosting of climate scepticism is the poor unfortunate Professor Peter Ridd from the James Cook Uni in Australia. Subsequently the student intake has dropped as the youth start to get a grip on the truth.
So why can't it just follow the peer review process, that sounds like that would be the easiest solution to progress this further?
That is a simple one to answer. If your research and findings do not coincide with the political narrative, they are perceived to be unfit for purpose by default, and therefore deemed to be worthless There is an awful lot of money provided by very wealthy and powerful people which is used to buy outcomes from wherever to fit whichever narrative they wish to be pursued. Anyone whose findings go against this is simply ignored or professionally 'canceled'.
That is a simple one to answer. If your research and findings do not coincide with the political narrative, they are perceived to be unfit for purpose by default, and therefore deemed to be worthless There is an awful lot of money provided by very wealthy and powerful people which is used to buy outcomes from wherever to fit whichever narrative they wish to be pursued. Anyone whose findings go against this is simply ignored or professionally 'canceled'.
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
