Climate change claims flawed, says study

[IGBT]

Text



Martin Agerup, president of the Danish Academy for Future Studies and colleagues from Stockholm, Canada, Iceland and Britain say in their report that predictions of "extreme impacts" based on greenhouse emissions employed "faulty science, faulty logic and faulty economics".

 

[Ronstang]

I have been calling it junk science for years but I don't have a PhD so no one is going to listen to me.

 

[jahawkin]

I think the article should be more vague.

 

[miketheidiot]

very unsubstantial article.

:beer:

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
very unsubstantial article.

:beer:

It's The Guardian. You shouldn't be surprised. 🙂

 

[Kibbo]

I am an environmentalist.

I beleive that many environmentalist orgs have overstated the threat of climate change.

I think that this article is sh1t.

They didn't even cite the name of the org that opposed the findings (which I would love to read, had I been given the opportunity).

 

[Taejin]

right, because we know pumping billions of tons of gases into the atmosphere won't produce any adverse effects, ever.

just forget about it and move on..

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
I am an environmentalist.

I beleive that many environmentalist orgs have overstated the threat of climate change.

I think that this article is sh1t.

They didn't even cite the name of the org that opposed the findings (which I would love to read, had I been given the opportunity).

Ummmmm...

Martin Agerup, president of the Danish Academy for Future Studies and colleagues from Stockholm, Canada, Iceland and Britain say in their report...

 

[Kibbo]

Meh, I'm drunk. Missed that part.

Edit: Here's a Google of the http://www.google.ca/search?hl...oogle+Search&meta=

Kinda funny that the first link is for a boarding school.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Meh, I'm drunk. Missed that part.

Edit: Here's a Google of the http://www.google.ca/search?hl...oogle+Search&meta=

Kinda funny that the first link is for a boarding school.

Boarding schools are a big part of danish culture, so actually not 😛 I've been at one myself.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: IGBT
Text



Martin Agerup, president of the Danish Academy for Future Studies and colleagues from Stockholm, Canada, Iceland and Britain say in their report that predictions of "extreme impacts" based on greenhouse emissions employed "faulty science, faulty logic and faulty economics".

I think the major problem with this report was that it was written by economists. But i'm looking into the information.

 

[f95toli]

Yes, Martin Ågerup is an economist, not an expert in climatology.
There is also danish statician which has been saying the same thing for a couple of years, as far as I can tell most of his claims have been shown to be false.

For some reason it seems reports saying that there is nothing to worry about get a lot of publicity, at the same time large internationasl studies that sometime involves hundreds of scientist that DO say we should worry are hardly mentioned in the media. I wonder why...

The article mentions that someone from Stockholm has been involved, I wonder who they are talking about? Stockholm University was involved in the ACIA report and our national weather service (which is also a reseach institute) has been doing climate predicitions for years and has concluded that that the greenhouse effect does affect the weather in Sweden.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
very unsubstantial article.

:beer:

It's The Guardian. You shouldn't be surprised. 🙂

The Guardian is referenced quite often on this forum

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: IGBT
Text



Martin Agerup, president of the Danish Academy for Future Studies and colleagues from Stockholm, Canada, Iceland and Britain say in their report that predictions of "extreme impacts" based on greenhouse emissions employed "faulty science, faulty logic and faulty economics".

I think the major problem with this report was that it was written by economists. But i'm looking into the information.

I think that a major problem with many climate change reports is that they make economic predictions and assumptions. Then economists criticize these economic assumptions, and no one listens to them, saying that only environmental scientists have the knowledge needed to do so.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
very unsubstantial article.

:beer:

It's The Guardian. You shouldn't be surprised. 🙂

The Guardian is referenced quite often on this forum

This is true, but its still a rag.