May 13, 2021

GIL

Daily Global New Media

MODELS PREDICT CATASTROPHE – Climate of Freedom #4

1 min read

32 thoughts on “MODELS PREDICT CATASTROPHE – Climate of Freedom #4

  1. Really tried to watch the whole thing…but it's just impossible to listen to that bulls***. You criticize a model for talking about climate change? What are you? A Youtuber?

  2. You're arguing against models from climate scientists with your own very simplified model which doesn't account for the interplay of many more factors that have long-term effects on the climate.
    And because your model is so basic you call it a fact? I'd call that very naive.

    Even if your predictions were true, I don't see why we should delay any climate action just because we might have more years than thought.
    When there are lots of unknowns, preparing for the worst is usually the safest option. After all countless lives are at stake. It's not something to gamble with.

  3. I wish you'd talk to an actual scientist instead of Mr. Monckton. I know you guys like it simple, but this matter is not as simple as you make it out to be. Real world data is NOT enough, because we dont have any real world data about what chain reactions caused by global warming will do. So what is suggested here is to just hope that everything will work out just fine. 1°C may not sound like much, but in regards to global temperature it is a LOT, and we already see desastrous consequences around the world. So buckle up, its gonna get rough.

  4. The whole point of the global warming debate shouldn’t be about how much warming there is it should be about what causes that warming and how we can address it.I mean, no can say that less cars and more renewable energy is a bad thing

  5. Bitte guck dir bei deiner nächsten “Recherche“ erst die Fakten an und bilde dir dann eine Meinung daraus und nicht andersherum.
    Der Menschen gemachte Klimawandel ist echt.

  6. 🐱‍👤 No computer model can predict the future. And it is fine. Nobody wants to know when he ist going to die!
    In a very complex system there ist even not a probility of an outcome possible to predict.
    .

  7. Lord Monckton is a paid for by the Oil Industry moron. Has he run any climate modelling simulations? No. Is he a scientist? No. He needs money and he is only too happy to spew disinformation to get paid. There is a name for that…. it starts with an H.

  8. dear NAOMI SEIBT: please sset up cameras in my room to catch my reactions when i watch your videos, you see what i meme about life. then, by your command, i get even more >:) deep serious. trust why

  9. By the way, video games (which are in fact models of reality with different levels of complexity – for example, there are flight simulators you cannot use unless you know how to fly, and as far as I know some of these are a part of training for real pilots) do not have to be always silly. They can be, if the developer has done a lousy job and just goes after quick money, but they do not always have to be, not by definition. If you want to disprove the value of computer generated models you need to address the assumptions they are based on, not just state "they are just silly video games, period''. Show me what is wrong with them (they contradict each other, are not consistent or have failed to predict the actual development etc.) And it would be interesting to see a computer model using the opposite assumptions and see what results it gives and which one is closer to the reality. Leaving the field of computer modeling only to your opponents means they have won by default, which should not happen.

  10. Leftist indoctrinator: Remember Naomi, the only scientific method these days is to panic, and the science I do not approve is not even science. A role model of scientific thinking is Greta Thunberg. Yes she is hysterical and cannot give simple answers if they are not on her script, like ''Should US President Trump listen to what you said'' (''Yes I think he should'' or ""I cannot make him but I hope he does'' are two possible answers) but she is the ultimate scientist and above any criticism. You, Naomi, on the contrary, are wrong by default. Just because you are not mainstream. I encourage you to repent before you have become a non-person. Panic, Naomi, panic, as Greta does!

  11. Dear Naomi,

    I would describe myself as someone from the politically left spectrum. And as someone who in your terms „believs“ in Climate Change, your video makes me sad and wonder, how you got to your opinion. Im not trying to judge you, im trying to understand you and make you understand me, since i beliefe conversation is the basis of democracy.

    The thesis of your Video is that doubling CO2 in the Atmosphere will raise Temperature by 1.5 Degrees and thats it. It Disregards the fact that as a result a process will be started in wich more and more CO2 will be released from the warming oceans and underneath the slowly melting polar caps and other positive feedback loops creating a vicious circle of CO2 and warming.

    Also the statement that the warming will be good for plant and animal life to me is rather…controversial, because with the amazon, australia and parts of the us burning as well as major droughts all over the world i find i to just not be true.

    I hope, you answer me, if you like even in German as i am German as well, so we can discuss this and i will get to understand your Opinion

    Greetings

  12. Okay, Missy, factcheck:
    1st, Monckton has no scientific background in climate science whatsoever.
    "Models are not fed with real data" – that's a lie. A really obvious one, too; all models are based on real data, too. They are by the way tested in a way which make them pretty much foolproof: We know, because science, what the atmosphere was like hundreds of thousands of years ago and how warm or cold it was then. So, if you feed the models with those data, the model has to accurately reproduce those conditions in order to be valid. That's how models are tested, and they are getting better and better.
    "0,9 degrees warming is not too much" – It's unprecedented for the last ten million years.
    "1.5 degrees per every doubling of CO²" – conveniently doesn't mention positive feedback effects, which can increase the radiative forcing by a lot. The 1.5 degrees is the CO²-forcing alone. No methane, no water vapour, nothing.
    It boggles my mind, that you, who despite your apparent intelligence, blatantly disregard the scientific process and mathematical modeling.
    "climate models, who cannot even predict the weather a week from now" – oh, come on! That's just, sorry, dumb. Climate isn't weather.
    "their predictions have failed" – nope, even the earliest models from the 1980s have accurately predicted the climatic conditions we have now.

    This video is so full of deception and lies that I refuse to believe that someone with your level of intelligence does actually believes this stuff.

  13. @Naomi: das "p" am Wortanfang ist still, wenn ein Zischlaut darauf folgt: [p]seudoscience, [p]sychology usw. Ich will damit nicht besserwisserisch als Grammar-Hans von oben herab tröten – aber du bist so weit und so fit für dein zartes Alter, daß ich sonst auf Anhieb erstmal wenig beitragen kann als solche Details.

  14. Mockton is no Lord. He is a douchebag. Also: how can real world data predict the future? Also also: how can it predict that the climate change will be beneficial? Where is the data on that? Also also also: the complex model predictions are correct. Check the peer reviewed papers. Also also also: mockton is involved with the heartland institute. As is/was Naomi. Talk about corruption…..

  15. I think to say that we don't need models is an over statement. Models are always built on data collected. However the patterns that the "silly little computer games" are modelling can be biased. Thus is the need for testing model veracity.

    It is obvious to anyone who studies high dimensional data that the "run away" greenhouse effect assumes a nonlinear growth model, these models gained traction after the chloro-fluoro-carbon's effect on the ozone in the 1990's wherein the ban on CFC's was the right decision. I could explain why modeling the greenhouse effect in a similar differential equation does not make sense but it would take some time. If you want that to add to your platform feel free to DM me.

  16. If people want to know what is going to wreck their lives
    they best stop looking at the climate and better wake up to the activities of
    the central banks. Economic collapse is much more of a threat than a virus,
    climate, or killer hornets , psycho cops or Antifa mobs.
    Wake up folks – the banks are about to wreck our lives and all these other things
    are distractions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 × three =