Met office "faking" climate data

[August Landmesser]

The carbon dioxide used to make fizzy drinks is usually captured and purified by-product of an industrial process. I'd it was not captured and used this way, then it would just be released straight into the atmosphere anyway. I don't think that carbon capture and storage is widespread, yet.

"If it was not captured and used this way, then it would just be released straight into the atmosphere anyway"
If industries that capture and purify the c02 do so to prevent it entering the atmosphere but the fizzy drink industry buys this captured C02 knowing it's customers will ultimately release it into the atmosphere anyway doesn't that defeat the (environmental) point of capturing it in first place.
If carbon tax is meant to help reduce the C02 in the atmosphere why is it only applied to things that are almost impossible to live without like fuel and energy but not the things we could easily live without like fizzy drinks. Why? because it's not meant to change our behaviour to help the environment, it's meant to tax behaviours that are near impossible to change.

 

[hughtrimble]

"If it was not captured and used this way, then it would just be released straight into the atmosphere anyway"
If industries that capture and purify the c02 do so to prevent it entering the atmosphere but the fizzy drink industry buys this captured C02 knowing it's customers will ultimately release it into the atmosphere anyway doesn't that defeat the (environmental) point of capturing it in first place.
If carbon tax is meant to help reduce the C02 in the atmosphere why is it only applied to things that are almost impossible to live without like fuel and energy but not the things we could easily live without like fizzy drinks. Why? because it's not meant to change our behaviour to help the environment, it's meant to tax behaviours that are near impossible to change.

If it didn't come from industry then it would be captured from the air. The point is that fizzy drink CO2 is not being created by the fizzy drink. The CO2 in it already exists, either having been created by e.g. burning fuels or latent in the air.

Industry generates new CO2. Fizzy drinks reuse existing CO2.

 

[Suffolkrafter]

Climate change since the industrial revolution is overwhelmingly caused by human emissions, not by natural climate chnage. Period. Scientific consensus on this is near unanimous and I think it's worth stating this clearly; this isn't my opinion, it's the conclusion of almost all climate scientists.
Was the earth once hotter, as many like to point out? Yes, but not when humans were around.
There is scientific consensus on what the future impact of climate change will be and what should be done about it.
We can all have our own opinions but these are overly influenced by our own values, attitudes, fears and prejudices. Future generations will pay the price for the voice given to today's armchair scientists and the disinformation generated by those who stand to gain (in the short term perhaps) from maintaining the status quo. And those who propagate it for reasons I don't understand.

 

[TLM]

Was the earth once hotter, as many like to point out? Yes, but not when humans were around.

Most data I could find shows a 2C higher than present peak about 125000 years ago. So it depends when you define us becoming "human".

 

[August Landmesser]

Climate change since the industrial revolution is overwhelmingly caused by human emissions, not by natural climate chnage. Period. Scientific consensus on this is near unanimous and I think it's worth stating this clearly; this isn't my opinion, it's the conclusion of almost all climate scientists.
Was the earth once hotter, as many like to point out? Yes, but not when humans were around.
There is scientific consensus on what the future impact of climate change will be and what should be done about it.
We can all have our own opinions but these are overly influenced by our own values, attitudes, fears and prejudices. Future generations will pay the price for the voice given to today's armchair scientists and the disinformation generated by those who stand to gain (in the short term perhaps) from maintaining the status quo. And those who propagate it for reasons I don't understand.

There is a very famous WW2 photo of a lone man at a political rally in Germany with his arms conspicuously folded amongst a sea of people saluting a notorious Austrian painter. At the time, the consensus was that the Austrian painter was a thoroughly decent fellow and the lone man refusing to go along with the consensus was influenced by his own values, fears and prejudices, but he wasn't wrong.

 

[Suffolkrafter]

There is a very famous WW2 photo of a lone man at a political rally in Germany with his arms conspicuously folded amongst a sea of people saluting a notorious Austrian painter. At the time, the consensus was that the Austrian painter was a thoroughly decent fellow and the lone man refusing to go along with the consensus was influenced by his own values, fears and prejudices, but he wasn't wrong.

I respect the point that you're making. But Hitler was an individual who was a master orator, influencer and a master of disinformation. He created an infrastructure that was bent to his own will. The great thing about the present day scientific community is that it self regulates, self corrects, peer reviews itself and in addition, any particular scientific discipline transcends ideology, nationality, and political leaning. Not saying it's perfect, but it's by far our best bet, and not comparable to Hitler.

 

[tarpy]

Climate change deniers really need to be treated like flat earthers at this point, in my opinion. Sincerely, no offence is meant to either group, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but there is absolutely no point the rest of us debating them any more. If they haven't accepted the evidence by now, they never will.

Flat earthers (many of them quite clever, scientifically literate people) have devised and carried out pretty sophisticated experiments, intending to prove the earth is flat. When the data inevitably show the earth is spherical though, they just scratch their heads wondering where they went wrong, and think up another experiment, their belief totally unshaken. It's interesting from a psychological point of view but is of zero interest to astrophysicists .

 

[slowworm]

As it's such a settled argument I would have thought resources would be better spent trying to reduce man made climate change rather than arguing about it. Apart from all the voices saying how bad it is, not much meaningful stuff seems to be being done.

Anyway, back to the OP. In a non-climate-change-denier way I would be curious to know how accurate the extrapolations are. I tend to either be at home or in a couple of nearby places, about 3-4 miles away and the weather is often quite different between each place. I would have thought it would be hard to extrapolate, or guess, one based or the others.

 

[August Landmesser]

Climate change deniers really need to be treated like flat earthers at this point, in my opinion. Sincerely, no offence is meant to either group, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but there is absolutely no point the rest of us debating them any more. If they haven't accepted the evidence by now, they never will.

Flat earthers (many of them quite clever, scientifically literate people) have devised and carried out pretty sophisticated experiments, intending to prove the earth is flat. When the data inevitably show the earth is spherical though, they just scratch their heads wondering where they went wrong, and think up another experiment, their belief totally unshaken. It's interesting from a psychological point of view but is of zero interest to astrophysicists .

Flat earthers, right or wrong highlight the mechanism used to trick the mind into accepting a theory as fact, The heliocentric model revolves around the big bang theory (first there was nothing, which exploded and created everything) which, for all intents and purposes sounds like a miracle, Flat earth theory (God created everything from nothing) another miracle. Both theories start with a miracle then our own prejudices decide how we interpret the data and who's miracle we accept in good "faith" Maybe both sides are wrong.

 

[Chris]

There is a very famous WW2 photo of a lone man at a political rally in Germany with his arms conspicuously folded amongst a sea of people saluting a notorious Austrian painter. At the time, the consensus was that the Austrian painter was a thoroughly decent fellow and the lone man refusing to go along with the consensus was influenced by his own values, fears and prejudices, but he wasn't wrong.

Good grief, this is an absurd comparison.

Are you genuinely trying to compare scientists to the Nazis?

 

[August Landmesser]

Good grief, this is an absurd comparison.

Are you genuinely trying to compare scientists to the Nazis?

No, I'm providing an example of when masses of people in near unanimous agreement were wrong and thus proving that consensus is not proof of being correct.

 

[Chris]

No, I'm providing an example of when masses of people in near unanimous agreement were wrong and thus proving that consensus is not proof of being correct.

And by doing so you’re suggesting scientists who have to meet rigorous standards of education and burden of proof to try and explain how the natural world works, are somehow comparable to Nazis who were murderous fascists.

This is a shameful comparison to make in this context.

 

[RonW]

Climate change since the industrial revolution is overwhelmingly caused by human emissions, not by natural climate chnage. Period. Scientific consensus on this is near unanimous and I think it's worth stating this clearly; this isn't my opinion, it's the conclusion of almost all climate scientists.
Was the earth once hotter, as many like to point out? Yes, but not when humans were around.
There is scientific consensus on what the future impact of climate change will be and what should be done about it.
We can all have our own opinions but these are overly influenced by our own values, attitudes, fears and prejudices. Future generations will pay the price for the voice given to today's armchair scientists and the disinformation generated by those who stand to gain (in the short term perhaps) from maintaining the status quo. And those who propagate it for reasons I don't understand.

Period?
Consensus does not mean proof or factually true. It all depends on who is funding what research and to what end. I would call it a political scam and ideological indoctrination.
Climate models create wildly irratic predictions, none of which have come true. Sealevels are still about what they were 100 years ago, polar bears appear to be thriving and oceanaccidification no longer appears to be an issue either.
The whole climate change-agenda/theory is one giant cash-hoover. Guess where that cash is going and where it is coming from. And that agenda is created by the Club of Rome, among others, and propagated ever since. Sucking out cash from society is a great driving force, controlling the frightened population is another, and main one, I think. Technocracy might have something to do with that.
And yes, the earth was hotter and colder when humans were around and temperatures will continue to fluctuate.

Do we, as humans, take care of our planet? No. Absolutely not.
Do we need to do a far better job as the earth's stewarts? Yes.
Are climate changes, when they occur, humanmade? No. There is no peerreviewed or objective study showing this. Quit the contrary. Those pointing this out within the scientific community are risking career, life & limb.

 

[August Landmesser]

And by doing so you’re suggesting scientists who have to meet rigorous standards of education and burden of proof to try and explain how the natural world works, are somehow comparable to Nazis who were murderous fascists.

This is a shameful comparison to make in this context.

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, you're skipping over the point i was making and attacking a suggestion that you made, not me.

 

[Chris]

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, you're skipping over the point i was making and attacking a suggestion that you made, not me.

You bought up the example of someone not saluting Nazis, in order to compare the idea to people denying scientific consensus. It's there above, anyway, so I am sure people can make up their own minds.

 

[August Landmesser]

You bought up the example of someone not saluting Nazis, in order to compare the idea to people denying scientific consensus. It's there above, anyway, so I am sure people can make up their own minds.

For clarity the point i was making is that because it's the consensus isn't proof of being right and being influenced by your own views, fears and prejudices isn't proof of being wrong but I agree, people can make up there own minds and if enough people share your opinion that will surely convert your opinion into a fact.

 

[C_Claycomb]

And by doing so you’re suggesting scientists who have to meet rigorous standards of education and burden of proof to try and explain how the natural world works, are somehow comparable to Nazis who were murderous fascists.

This is a shameful comparison to make in this context.

Which branch of science do you work in?

Based upon what I have seen, your evaluation of scientists is optimistic. There are ample examples of people challenging the scientific orthodoxy and getting hammered by the scientific community only to be proved correct in time. In the case of climate science, it is simplistic to speak of a monolithic block of unanimous consensus on one side and only cranks on the other.

While I am certain that the tons of fossil CO2we have rapidly injected back into the atmosphere is causing a warming trend, I have seen interviews with too many climate scientists describing how “the community” blocked or ignored research and data that did not fit the narrative, to swallow the narrative whole. Furthermore, while the IPCC scientists might be entirely diligent, ethical and balanced, the summaries from their reports get compressed and filtered so many times before politicians uses them to justify action that being skeptical is the rational response.

As an example that some might find easier to understand, remember the start of the pandemic. Remember the rapidly rising concern, the model based warnings, the government stating that it was acting based on science? Remember the people that said masks were ineffective, that lockdowns would be terrible for the economy, for mental health and the health and education of children? Remember the people who expressed concern that the vaccines had not been tested thoroughly, and that adverse reactions were being down played or covered up? Remember how all these concerns were over ruled, and the people who voiced them were vilified, belittled, ignored? The situation seemed so dire that lots of us went along with the government line…and to hell with consequences.

Now here we are, paying the price of those decisions. Maybe it was worth it, but maybe not.

The matter of climate change is similar. Lots of good science, but also a fair number of people running around like their hair is on fire, suggesting that all risks and costs to the economy, security, and health are worth it based on the dire future predicted by models.

 

[Chris]

Which branch of science do you work in?

I do not, but thankfully I don't pretend to know more than them from watching YT clips and 'doing my own research' without the training and rigorous peer review process that they have to go through.

 

[C_Claycomb]

Asking questions and being skeptical is not pretending to know more than the people you question.

Are you familiar with the term “argument (or appeal) from authority”?

I would suggest you look into the modern problems with the peer review process. If you aren’t even aware of them, then you really are just running on faith.

 

[Suffolkrafter]

Remember the people who expressed concern that the vaccines had not been tested thoroughly, and that adverse reactions were being down played or covered up? Remember how they were vilified, belittled, ignored?

This is my field and I remember these concerns. I looked into this at the time, gave benefit of the doubt to what people claimed, as I wondered, 'what if what people say is true?' Without exception I found the concerns to be based on misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the process of developing vaccines. The approval of COVID vaccine followed every required process and regulation as far as I could tell. I don't wish to start an argument but at the same time I feel I should express what I think. It saddens me greatly that these topics prove so devisive and that's not something I want to contribute to. I mean no disrespect to anyone.