| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Off topic...
Do you do research into the ocean climate change topics?
There's something that's been floating about that I've heard touched upon, but haven't gotten much information on as most of those I know research in other areas than Oceans and water.
I've heard that currently there is a thought (and research into it, but I haven't seen it) about how the oceans may be acting sort of like heat reservoirs, with the heat building up within them.
It's sort of like water insulation (some places use it as water is a great insulator in that it retains heat longer and can hold more energy in that way).
Have you heard of this and what impacts do you think or have you noticed that this is causing on the oceans themselves?
Sorry, off topic, but this is something that my slightly geeky side is sort of interested in.
My relatives closest thing would be involved with animal life in these areas, or the spread of pollutants and other items...not the heat transfer and absorption of the ocean itself and the effects it will or may have on the environment at large (though there is supposition that it will reach a breaking point and then the effects will be strongly felt). It's been touched upon but not gone into depth with me, and as it isn't there area of expertise I don't think they go into as much detail with it.
Just interested on more of a summation and summary of it.
Thanks.
My main research focuses on marine mammal evolution, principally seals but also whales (especially next year). A key interest of mind is biogeography, and for marine mammals that is heavily controlled by sea surface temperature and productivity. So I spent a decent amount of time looking up how sea surface temperature and productivity has changed over time. For instance, for most of the Neogene, there was pretty much a stable band of tropical water around the equator. This produced a sort of wall which prevented different groups, such as sea lions and fur seals, from spreading south from the North Pacific. That wall was "breached" so to say around the Miocene-Pliocene boundary, and a few times later on in the Pliocene and Pleistocene, when equatorial waters cooled and productivity increased. We can easily see this in the fossil record of both hemispheres, as well as marine mammal distribution today.
I think I have heard some stuff similar to what you describe for ocean water temperature, but it's more along the lines that the ocean is so big it actually takes a while to get a "shift" in temperature, when compared to land or air. Most of the stuff I have seen and remember revolves around ocean acidity (more CO2 -> greater acidity -> bad news for anything with a carbonate skeleton, like corals) and the fact that increased temperature leads to increased evaporation which in turn magnifies the greenhouse effect.
It's hard to make that sound like an accomplishment that climate scientists should be proud of. ("Hey, congratulations, people! We're finally the most misunderstood science in the world, displacing evolutionary theory!")
There's definitely something wrong with the mass media, but that's not the same as "wrong with climate science".
No, it's proof of how excellent climate science is, obviously. (<rolleyes>)
Does the existence of flame war threads over creationism/evolution show there's something fundamentally wrong with biological science?
Yes. It shows that biologists are lousy at running media campaigns --- and that's pretty fundamental to public understanding and acceptance of science.
Again, are you trying to spin those flame wars as something evolutionary biologists should be proud of?
But if science is not by itself interested in the politics of the issue, and it is not, then again, why tolerate the IPCC? There are huge fields of science funded in other ways, via the universities. They could do their science in peace and don't make the public play for attention at all. Wouldn't that be a better alternative?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if science is not by itself interested in the politics of the issue, and it is not, then again, why tolerate the IPCC? There are huge fields of science funded in other ways, via the universities. They could do their science in peace and don't make the public play for attention at all. Wouldn't that be a better alternative?
So if you just discovered germ theory do you stay holed up in your lab or do you say "Hey people! Start washing your hands after you play with the cadavers!"
But if science is not by itself interested in the politics of the issue, and it is not, then again, why tolerate the IPCC?
I don't think I fully understand the question. Scientists are generally interested in the politics of the issue -- they're human beings, after all, and they literally know better than anyone else on the planet what the effects of global warming will be to themselves, their children, and their communities. And since they know those effects, and consider them to be negative, they are strongly interested in preventing those effects.
That's like asking why individual pediatricians aren't pushing for vaccinations (another great conspiracy theory, by the way). The fact is that they are, but you don't see it. They vaccinate their own children, they recommend vaccinations to their patients and their patients' children, and some of them will write individual letters to their legislators and whatnot. However, they also recognize that this kind of lobbying is much better done via organizations like the AMA, the AAP, and the CDC.
The IPCC is a large organization with the specific remit of assessing research on climate change and publishing those assessments. Why shouldn't it be tolerated?
There are huge fields of science funded in other ways, via the universities.
There are. The IPCC doesn't fund or do science at all(*). Most of the funding for climate research comes from various government agencies through universities.
The IPCC, by contrast, "reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters."
They could do their science in peace and don't make the public play for attention at all. Wouldn't that be a better alternative?
In short, no.
In long,... NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Simply "doing the science in peace" wouldn't accomplish anything, since scientists don't have any authority as individuals (or indeed collectively) to enforce national-level policy changes. That can only be done by politicians, which means someone's got to speak to the politicians (in a language the politicians understand) on behalf of the scientists. The IPCC is one organization that was officially set up to do so. As I said, it generally gets the science pretty well correct. That's also a role that the Pope has decided to take on, speaking to world leaders and the public on behalf of the scientists whom he consulted closely with for the recent encyclical.
(*) Actually, it does fund about ten scholarships a year to students from developing countries in order to "build capacity in the understanding and management of climate change in developing countries by providing opportunities for young scientists from developing countries to undertake doctoral studies."
Indeed, you won't know that. What could make it easier to determine the direction of the skew due to unreported results is to see if the researchers have a vested interest. And of course, they do. Given the scrutiny of the field by the sceptics, and given the importance to give the impression of "the science is settled", it's a simple matter of the politicos at the top of the dung heap getting the money to the various researchers, who in turn know enough not to rock the boat by publishing things that could be interpreted as "the science is NOT settled". Given this, we can comfortably and confidently say that if real results were not being reported, it would be those NOT supporting AGW. True, it COULD be a career move to debunk AGW - but believe that each and every one of those involved know the field would be completely dismantled if that were to happen.
And yet more argument consisting of assertions about the bias of those who disagree with you.
In fact there is a side in the debate with the resources to influence the debate by hiring people to put about a view that supports their economic interest. The fossil fuel industry.
Someone said in response to another of your posts where you said Greenpeace had a budget in the hundreds of millions that Exxon Mobile had a budget in the hundreds of billions. And that is just one company. Anyone can easily verify that the fossil fuel industry has more money that all the worlds green groups put together by a factor of thousands.
But to your mind it is the side with a vast vested economic interest and vastly more money and political clout that is the victim of a conspiracy .
No of course not, but it's also not their fault. It's the fault of a dedicated movement trying to tear them down. It's not like if biologists just did better science and communicated their findings better the entire infrastructure of creationist groups would go away.
Again, are you trying to spin those flame wars as something evolutionary biologists should be proud of?
Actually, that's exactly what would happen if biologists were sufficiently better at communicating their findings. Without a huge group of gullible donors to fleece, the organizations would run out of money, dry up, and blow away..... or disappear to a few lunatic web pages like Time Cube and the Flat Earthers.
It's more or less what's happening to the antivaccinators, now that the reality-influenced pro-vaccine crowd has actually pulled their socks up and started communicating.
You have a much more optimistic take than I do. I don't think any reasonable amount of better communication could overcome the weekly preaching of the Truth.No of course not, but it's also not their fault. It's the fault of a dedicated movement trying to tear them down. It's not like if biologists just did better science and communicated their findings better the entire infrastructure of creationist groups would go away.
Again, are you trying to spin those flame wars as something evolutionary biologists should be proud of?
Actually, that's exactly what would happen if biologists were sufficiently better at communicating their findings. Without a huge group of gullible donors to fleece, the organizations would run out of money, dry up, and blow away..... or disappear to a few lunatic web pages like Time Cube and the Flat Earthers.
It's more or less what's happening to the antivaccinators, now that the reality-influenced pro-vaccine crowd has actually pulled their socks up and started communicating.
Well, how many anti-Copernicans do you still see around?
And the anti-vax movement took a big kick in the pants from a couple of measles outbreaks. That's a big scary dose of reality that pushed the media to give the actual science a moment.
.... and the actual scientists managed to take advantage of that moment in the sun. I don't recall any similar discussion of climate change after "the warmest <X> on record," of which we've had dozens recently.
Yeah, about that... we recently had the coldest May in ages. If that is pointed out to the AGWers, it's called cherry picking. Weather, not climate, you know? And yet... every time there is a warm month, the very same AGWers holler about it, and it's not cherry picking, somehow. If one month's temperatures is weather, not climate, how is it relevant to scream about one warm month?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, about that... we recently had the coldest May in ages. If that is pointed out to the AGWers, it's called cherry picking. Weather, not climate, you know? And yet... every time there is a warm month, the very same AGWers holler about it, and it's not cherry picking, somehow. If one month's temperatures is weather, not climate, how is it relevant to scream about one warm month?
You're either constructing a strawman or indulging in ad-hominem here. So either those who holler about every warm month are not actual scientist (what I think is most probably the case), in which case going after them as if they are representative of any real state of the current knowledge about climate change is...
or you've managed to find some scientists who do that as well. In which case you are going after their fallibility rather than looking at the very large and convincing body of data that was accumulated about the subject.
It doesn't matter if some morons can't notice that they are toting a cause without understanding it if there is real substance in the cause with actual thinkers leading it. Especially when among figures of actual authority (in this case, scientists) the morons are a vast minority.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And also... having almost every year of the new century be on of the hottest ever recorded (though addmitaddly in a short time span) is a much more convincing datapoint than one extremely cold month in one location. The data about the warming is global in scope and is of much greater time scale.
|
|
Well, how many anti-Copernicans do you still see around?
That's different. Humanity has had countless generations to deal with the knowledge that the Earth is not actually the flat center of the universe. The fact was well known long before the christian count started. The European medieval ages were a regression in that account, denying and purposefully forgetting known truths.
Evolution is a much newer concept. Conservative thought needs another generation or ten to start coming to terms with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If one month's temperatures is weather, not climate, how is it relevant to scream about one warm month?
It isn't. But when the ten hottest years on record, as measured by global temperatures, are all since 1998, it starts to look like a trend. (The record keeping, by the way, began in 1880.) I can even do the statistics for you, if you like.
Similarly the past 38 years have all, without exception, been warmer than the long-term baseline established over the same period. And the last time a new record was set for "the coldest year on record" was 1911, more than 100 years ago.
And these are exactly the points that can and should be brought up when discussing "the hottest X on record."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, how many anti-Copernicans do you still see around?That's different. Humanity has had countless generations to deal with the knowledge that the Earth is not actually the flat center of the universe. The fact was well known long before the christian count started. The European medieval ages were a regression in that account, denying and purposefully forgetting known truths.
So is modern creationism. The creation-evolution debate had largely disappeared in the 1950s. (Wikipedia: `The creationist fervor of the past seemed like ancient history. A historian at Oklahoma's Northeastern State University, R. Halliburton, even made a prediction in 1964 that "a renaissance of the [creationist] movement is most unlikely."') Like climate change denial, it was basically a handy peg to drum up political support for conservative politicians.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I stand corrected, it was the extinction of the dinos. Thank you to the poster that actually had the true cause of the Ice Age, which was not about the climate changing drastically either.
The overall main point about this whole issue is that "Man" really has nothing to do with how a global climate changes through the ages. We can suffer the indignity of little cars, hiked up energy costs, and going to the older battery technology and the earth will be the same as it ever was, changing climate, for better or worse.
That isn't to say I want dirty water or a more polluted environment, just that there is a point where we are hurting ourselves and our society by insisting on alternatives that serve little purpose and ends up being more expensive.
We, as a society, will find better ways to produce, use, and "store" energy as we have before. Right now, such discoveries might be held in check because of the want to promote Solar and Wind energy tech, which is not, in the long run, going to be used in place of what we already have. This is while other energy is being badmouthed in the media and trying to be taxed/fined to death.
Wind, as far as it goes, is basically storage into the older battery tech, with expensive towers that break or run down before it "pays" for itself.
Is climate change real? Well, yes. It changes at time continues to pass. Does man have anything to do with it? No, not really.
Does anyone remember the big scare about aresol cans that destroys the atmosphere? I had read a small blurb on page 6 in a newspaper several years ago that found that they really didn't, that the "study" was flawed. We still don't use the chemical that was the main focus anymore, but it was still interesting.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Far from the "Science being in" its not even science
Yes, it is. You are not equipped to say otherwise, as we're about to discover.
Well the main reason is that the so called science is based upon computer modeling that give worst case scenarios and well that's not how you do science.
None of what you just said is true.
A science would be backed by a theorem.
Sweetheart, theorems are for mathematics. Science makes use of theories when evaluating research.
A theorem that provides accurate and verifiable predictions,
Like the theories surrounding climate change do!
Climate change based as it is on inaccurate computer models makes no such predictions.
Here's a document outlining sets of predictions made as part of climate change theory. Isn't this fun?
The problem with the theory of "Man made climate change" is that it is not spoken about in the language of science but it is constantly spoken of in the language of Politics, that's because its a Political theory not a Scientific theory
It is spoken in the language of science in scientific journals. Which you clearly haven't spent significant time reading.
Here's the way public policy on scientific matters is supposed to work. Scientists (and society at large) have a question (or questions) that need answering. Scientists do science in an attempt to answer that question. After enough science has been done and clear trends and results have emerged, scientists develop a consensus on the subject. That consensus is then (ideally!) used in the world of politics to make well-informed decisions on the issue.
The primary problem we're having is that a lot of people (mostly politicians and the scientifically illiterate) don't want to use the consensus to inform policy-making.
The conspiracy is that some "scientists"
You don't get to put scare quotes around the word when talking about PhD-level researchers at major research universities.
And it's important to clarify that when you say "some" scientists, you actually mean practically every single scientist in the fields in question.
in conjunction with politicians have discovered a way to keep their snouts in the public funding trough forever,
Yes, how dare they. They've discovered a global issue that threatens the livelihood of huge populations, and would like you to give them the money they need to try and stop it. What monsters they are.
base a case for continued funding on a unverifiable proposition,
Creationism is an unverifiable proposition. Climate change theories make predictions (some of which are explained in the IoP document I provided you with), and thus can be verified.
spread constant fear and panic among the voting public
I don't see any scientists actively promoting fear or panic. I see a lot of Republican politicians doing that, though! (See earlier in the thread where I link to research demonstrating that self-identifying conservatives are more sensitive to fear, negative imagery, and reflexive decision-making.)
so that they demand political action that lines the pockets of co-conspirators and feeds the campaign of fear and panic, pushing the public to further support the conspiring politicians, getting them more power and push for further "scientific" funding and so the conspiracy continues to feed, the unverifiable proposition becomes more diverse demanding more funding so more power is required to the point that world government is required and soon after that emergency powers are required to deal with the panic and fear that the conspiracy was designed to cause, democracy gets suspended and tyranny is instituted the politicians become entrenched and their co-conspirators are voted more and more funding and on it goes.
None of which makes a lick of sense if the theories actually make predictions and are actually verified (repeatedly and independently) by hordes of scientists.
If you want to prove it as a science you will need to provide a scientific proof
Science doesn't deal in proof. Ever. Proofs are for mathematics.
that is accurate and verifiable,
The word you're looking for is "theory".
If you want to prove it as a science you will need to provide a scientific proof that is accurate and verifiable, then we can pull the plug on all the research funding and pass the whole mess over to practical scientists and engineer a solution , ahh you can spot the problem there now cant you , if the science is done properly the funding gets stopped and that would be that all those "important scientist" would be out of a job and need new funding
Those "important scientist" wouldn't be out of jobs. They would simply find other pressing issues to study. In fact, your (and your ilk's) unwavering resistance to accepting scientific consensus is forcing many scientists to waste valuable time and resources demonstrating climate change theory's validity to frankly unnecessary levels of reliability. Hell, many of the scientists in question have tenure.
This is all really basic stuff that you don't have a handle on. Why do you feel like you have the credibility to make the claims that you have made given how little you understand of how science fundamentally works (not climate science, but the concept of scientific study in general)?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I stand corrected, it was the extinction of the dinos. Thank you to the poster that actually had the true cause of the Ice Age, which was not about the climate changing drastically either.
An ice age is literally the term we use to refer to long-term reductions in global temperature, so it absolutely is about drastic climate change. Just on a much, much grander scale than you thought.
Hell, anything that is responsible for glacial field creation cannot be called anything less than drastic.
(By the way, ice ages are responsible for more than just the climate being altered. Glaciation - a symptom of ice ages - is responsible for sculpting huge swaths of geography as well!)
The overall main point about this whole issue is that "Man" really has nothing to do with how a global climate changes through the ages.
Because thaX says so.
We can suffer the indignity of little cars,
Oh god you're complaining about having to deal with small cars?
hiked up energy costs, and going to the older battery technology and the earth will be the same as it ever was, changing climate, for better or worse.
Because every climate scientist on the planet is wrong, right?
That isn't to say I want dirty water or a more polluted environment, just that there is a point where we are hurting ourselves and our society by insisting on alternatives that serve little purpose and ends up being more expensive.
They serve purpose. You just don't think they do, because you have actively resisted acceptance of the science that supports switching to those alternatives.
We, as a society, will find better ways to produce, use, and "store" energy as we have before.
Yes, we will! Hilariously, many of the same scientists supporting global climate change research are the scientists who will find better ways to harness and store energy! I guess their credibility as scientists really boils down to whether thaX thinks what they're studying at the moment is awesome or not.
This is while other energy is being badmouthed in the media and trying to be taxed/fined to death.
Good.
Is climate change real? Well, yes. It changes at time continues to pass. Does man have anything to do with it? No, not really.
Again, because thaX says so.
Does anyone remember the big scare about aresol cans that destroys the atmosphere? I had read a small blurb on page 6 in a newspaper several years ago that found that they really didn't, that the "study" was flawed. We still don't use the chemical that was the main focus anymore, but it was still interesting.
Ah yes, the old "I once saw a story about a scientific article being debunked, so that gives me justification for discarding every study whose conclusions I don't personally agree with, even though a) I'm not a scientist and am not qualified to judge the validity of scientific studies, and b) rather than discarding one flawed article I'm discarding literally thousands of thoroughly-verified pieces of literature," technique!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh god you're complaining about having to deal with small cars?
I crammed into the back seat of a prius once. When i shifted positions the car tried to turn.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh god you're complaining about having to deal with small cars?I crammed into the back seat of a prius once. When i shifted positions the car tried to turn.
I want to refute this, but as a Prius owner...I can't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I stand corrected, it was the extinction of the dinos. Thank you to the poster that actually had the true cause of the Ice Age, which was not about the climate changing drastically either.
Does anyone remember the big scare about aresol cans that destroys the atmosphere? I had read a small blurb on page 6 in a newspaper several years ago that found that they really didn't, that the "study" was flawed. We still don't use the chemical that was the main focus anymore, but it was still interesting.
It was me who pointed out that the last ice age was not caused by an asteroid impact. Given the very polarized nature of the discussion I was a bit surprised you checked. Your conclusions haven't changed.
CFCs, the chemicals in aerosol cans were in fact destroying the ozone layer. Their use has been discontinued a long time ago and it did cost a lot of money. I believe that the ozone layer is slowly recovering and more UV light reaches us, making sunburn and skin cancer more likely.
I am not surprised you read of this in a newspaper and not a scientific journal. If all the money and global effort that went into eliminating the use of CFCs was really shown to be a waste of time, it would be a huge story and scandal.
There might have been a scientific paper published to that effect. But if there was it's not accepted by the scientific community, or even have a significant minority of supporters, or we all would have heard of it. A lot.
I want to refute this, but as a Prius owner...I can't.Oh god you're complaining about having to deal with small cars?I crammed into the back seat of a prius once. When i shifted positions the car tried to turn.I own a Prius. It's the biggest car I've ever owned. :)
Never had a problem with carrying passengers, even some fairly large people. It fits a surprising amount of cargo too, if you drop the back seats.
Absolutely! But I do find that adding weight to the car does wonky things to it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's also acid rain, which was a huge problem and probably would have destroyed the environment as we know it had we not stopped that particular brand of polluting.
And the Dust Bowl.
People that claim humans can't affect the climate are ignoring history, which shows us that humans have impacted the climate multiple times in the past.
In Sweden, we had TREE DEATH!!! in the eighties. We had massive numbers of trees just dying off, and the environmentalists of the time wasted no time connecting this to pollution, acid rain and so on. They staged protests where they blocked main throughfares in our cities, screaming "TREE MURDERERS!!!" to people driving cars, and so on.
The movement ended in time, as the people involved found other things to scream about (clubbed seals was big, and also paid for by Greenpeace). However, in the mid nineties, someone actually did a serious follow-up and found that some moron who was responsible for buying up massive numbers of plants from plant schools in Germany had forgotten to check the cold tolerance of the various plants they bought. Sweden has winters, most of the time anyway, and the trees couldn't cope.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Sweden, we had TREE DEATH!!! in the eighties.
Well, that's definitely a reason to reject the IPCC. <:rolleyes:>
In Sweden, we had TREE DEATH!!! in the eighties. We had massive numbers of trees just dying off, and the environmentalists of the time wasted no time connecting this to pollution, acid rain and so on. They staged protests where they blocked main throughfares in our cities, screaming "TREE MURDERERS!!!" to people driving cars, and so on.
The movement ended in time, as the people involved found other things to scream about (clubbed seals was big, and also paid for by Greenpeace). However, in the mid nineties, someone actually did a serious follow-up and found that some moron who was responsible for buying up massive numbers of plants from plant schools in Germany had forgotten to check the cold tolerance of the various plants they bought. Sweden has winters, most of the time anyway, and the trees couldn't cope.
What was the scientific consensus on the tree die off?
(also note this is one reason why the native gardening thing took off)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Sweden, we had TREE DEATH!!! in the eighties. We had massive numbers of trees just dying off, and the environmentalists of the time wasted no time connecting this to pollution, acid rain and so on. They staged protests where they blocked main throughfares in our cities, screaming "TREE MURDERERS!!!" to people driving cars, and so on.
The movement ended in time, as the people involved found other things to scream about (clubbed seals was big, and also paid for by Greenpeace). However, in the mid nineties, someone actually did a serious follow-up and found that some moron who was responsible for buying up massive numbers of plants from plant schools in Germany had forgotten to check the cold tolerance of the various plants they bought. Sweden has winters, most of the time anyway, and the trees couldn't cope.
What was the scientific consensus on the tree die off?
As far as I can tell, acidification in Sweden over the period discussed was very much a real thing according to the actual scientific literature.
Interestingly enough, one effect of acidification is to reduce plants' tolerance for cold. I'm afraid that TREE DEATH!!!! is looking like another shaggy dog story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So its only real science if...
-The environmental scientists have no relationships with any environmental groups.
-They have no relationships with any existing universities
-The project is not funded by any environmental group, government, or university thats ever done this before. Its funding is going to come from.. somewhere.
-The scientists don't use any "Tainted" data so.. no data ever, they have to collect all of their own on a world wide basis starting now so they'll have something useful in 50 t0 100 years.
-They can't use nasa's tainted satalites, because nasa is in on the fix and might alter their data
-They'll have to collect their own core samples, replicating decades of research ex nillo
-None of the new hermetically sealed scientists can recieve training from any of the proffessors involved in the old research.. but since proffessors are research scientsts that pretty much means they can't recieve any training at all.
-nothing they say can be taken out of context as saying something else, ever.
-They can't read any books written by global warming advocates, so they can't get training on their own
and last but not least, if the scientists reach a conclusion that something terrible is about to happen anyway they have to shut up about it so they don't taint their pure acedemia of the work.
No. Other. Field of science or human endeavor has ever been held to that standard. None. Its beyond unrealistic. Its whole heartedly throwing yourself into the arms of epistemic nihlism and ONLY for one side of the issue and only for one issue. It's deciding your position by the evidence rather than the other way around.
Its worse than the David Chapelle "Reasonable doubt" skit.
|
|
One of the most interesting ways it was explained recently is when one studied the fact that all swans are white. When a black swan was discovered, it was considered an anomaly and ignored, and the conclusion was that there was no black swans at all. This is the same type of finagling that happens with global warming/climate change studies.Did you just present the white swan black swan thing as actual study? And as RECENT thing? ._.;
That has been a thing since 1930s! And it was never real study, it has always been a common example on why "I have never seen black swan, so all swans are white" is bad logic..
I hope I'm just failing at reading comprehension because I don't want to believe someone actually thought that to having been actual thing <_< Please tell me its me misreading stuff
No. I refer to it as an example and a parallel to how Global Warming studies have been done. That information is cherry picked and anything that refutes or does not support the theory that is wanted to be arrived at is left out or outright changed.
1930s, eh. Pretty cool that an example of how not to prove a theory in scientific knowledge has been around for a while.
|
|
There might have been a scientific paper published to that effect. But if there was it's not accepted by the scientific community, or even have a significant minority of supporters, or we all would have heard of it. A lot.
In today's media? It doesn't fit the mold, why would they write about "old news."
D oh, deciding your evidence by your position rather than the other way around
So its only real science if...
-The environmental scientists have no relationships with any environmental groups.
-They have no relationships with any existing universities
-The project is not funded by any environmental group, government, or university thats ever done this before. Its funding is going to come from.. somewhere.
-The scientists don't use any "Tainted" data so.. no data ever, they have to collect all of their own on a world wide basis starting now so they'll have something useful in 50 t0 100 years.
-They can't use nasa's tainted satalites, because nasa is in on the fix and might alter their data
-They'll have to collect their own core samples, replicating decades of research ex nillo
-None of the new hermetically sealed scientists can recieve training from any of the proffessors involved in the old research.. but since proffessors are research scientsts that pretty much means they can't recieve any training at all.
-nothing they say can be taken out of context as saying something else, ever.
-They can't read any books written by global warming advocates, so they can't get training on their own
and last but not least, if the scientists reach a conclusion that something terrible is about to happen anyway they have to shut up about it so they don't taint their pure acedemia of the work.
No. Other. Field of science or human endeavor has ever been held to that standard. None. Its beyond unrealistic. Its whole heartedly throwing yourself into the arms of epistemic nihlism and ONLY for one side of the issue and only for one issue. It's deciding your position by the evidence rather than the other way around.
Its worse than the David Chapelle "Reasonable doubt" skit.
Indeed, that is a very tall order. Lucky how I never claimed all that, huh? It would be very interesting to see you support each of those points with quotes from me. Very interesting indeed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Big Norse Wolf- I think you are wasting your time.
When it comes to science, which is the basis of a lot of what a person knows, you really have to trust the scientific community , with its requirements for peer revue and repeatable data. This is even true of a scientist in their area of expertise- its not possible to do every experiment yourself.
But these climate "skeptics" do the opposite. They endlessly claim the scientific community is biased, or not reporting results [and they somehow know these unknown unreported results support their point of view]. Ditto the media. Because a Jewish, sorry, green, conspiracy controls the worlds media. Anyone who disagrees is biased or worse.
As I pointed out in a previous post in detail, the side in the climate change debate with the money and political clout to influence the debate is the fossil fuel industry, whose resources so exceed those of the green movement its ludicrous.
Using reason or evidence against such thinking is pointless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-The environmental scientists have no relationships with any environmental groups.
"Doing some reading up on it, I find that more or less everyone at the top levels of the Climate Lobby is a former or current member of Greenpeace or the WWF. Greenpeace were the guys who sent out actors to club seals and torture kangaroos for money to "raise awareness" in the nineties."
-They have no relationships with any existing universities
So, what is needed is INDEPENDENT research. After a serious investigation of the manners of research in the current climatology field and some serious transparency work, the field could start producing interesting results again.
-The project is not funded by any environmental group, government, or university thats ever done this before. Its funding is going to come from.. somewhere.
So, what is needed is INDEPENDENT research. After a serious investigation of the manners of research in the current climatology field and some serious transparency work, the field could start producing interesting results again.
-The scientists don't use any "Tainted" data so.. no data ever, they have to collect all of their own on a world wide basis starting now so they'll have something useful in 50 t0 100 years.
So, what is needed is INDEPENDENT research. After a serious investigation of the manners of research in the current climatology field and some serious transparency work, the field could start producing interesting results again.
-They can't use nasa's tainted satalites, because nasa is in on the fix and might alter their data
b) nobody remains working in climatology that doesn't toe the official line. I find 3% dissenting is a VERY high figure, given the above
(nasa works in climatology. Therefore....)
-They'll have to collect their own core samples, replicating decades of research ex nillo
The scientists support the doomsayings and grabs of influence of the certain people, and the certain people provide for grants for the scientists, through various state administrations.
-None of the new hermetically sealed scientists can recieve training from any of the professors involved in the old research.. but since professors are research scientsts that pretty much means they can't receive any training at all.
You want PHD candidates doing actual research you need them to pass the classes and get their doctorates. If your hermetically sealed scientists go through a selection process overseen by AGW scientists in on a conspiracy/cult/cerfufle you will get more AGW scientists.
-nothing they say can be taken out of context as saying something else, ever.
" Climategate is a big deal
", redefinition of the peer-review process,
-They can't read any books written by global warming advocates, so they can't get training on their own
Independent, again.
I thought this one would be obvious.
-and last but not least, if the scientists reach a conclusion that something terrible is about to happen anyway they have to shut up about it so they don't taint their pure acedemia of the work.
But if science is not by itself interested in the politics of the issue, and it is not, then again, why tolerate the IPCC?
OH, and to top it off, they have to pull off these miracles AND THEN have the media faithfully report it to the American public without any oversimplification.
In Sweden, we had TREE DEATH!!! in the eighties. We had massive numbers of trees just dying off, and the environmentalists of the time wasted no time connecting this to pollution, acid rain and so on. They staged protests where they blocked main throughfares in our cities, screaming "TREE MURDERERS!!!" to people driving cars, and so on.
The movement ended in time, as the people involved found other things to scream about (clubbed seals was big, and also paid for by Greenpeace). However, in the mid nineties, someone actually did a serious follow-up and found that some moron who was responsible for buying up massive numbers of plants from plant schools in Germany had forgotten to check the cold tolerance of the various plants they bought. Sweden has winters, most of the time anyway, and the trees couldn't cope.
Are you using this as some sort of proof that acid rain isn't real?
Irontruth: Not at all. Just saying that environmentalists screaming might not be the best qualification of a true statement.
BNW: You honestly got ALL THAT from "independent research"??? Sorry, but that is downright ludicrous. *giggles*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty cool that an example of how not to prove a theory in scientific knowledge
Theories don't get proven. Ever. There is no point at which a theory "graduates" into proof. Theories simply become better and better evidenced and describe reality more and more accurately as time progresses. Think of a theory as a curve, with reality as the asymptote.
Your ignorance of the scientific method aside, you need to put up or shut up, here. You have made a lot of absurd claims and haven't bothered to evidence them. If you can do so, do so. If not, it's probably time for you to move on.
There might have been a scientific paper published to that effect. But if there was it's not accepted by the scientific community, or even have a significant minority of supporters, or we all would have heard of it. A lot.In today's media? It doesn't fit the mold, why would they write about "old news."
We're not talking about "news". We're talking about peer reviewed studies published in respected scholarly journals. You should be able to find some. In fact, you should be able to find a ton of them. If you can't find a ton of studies supporting your stance, you should be very concerned about the truth value of your stance.
|
|
So is modern creationism. The creation-evolution debate had largely disappeared in the 1950s. (Wikipedia: `The creationist fervor of the past seemed like ancient history. A historian at Oklahoma's Northeastern State University, R. Halliburton, even made a prediction in 1964 that "a renaissance of the [creationist] movement is most unlikely."') Like climate change denial, it was basically a handy peg to drum up political support for conservative politicians.Well, how many anti-Copernicans do you still see around?That's different. Humanity has had countless generations to deal with the knowledge that the Earth is not actually the flat center of the universe. The fact was well known long before the christian count started. The European medieval ages were a regression in that account, denying and purposefully forgetting known truths.
I consider this to be more like noise on a graph, a bump in the direction counter to the overall progression over a long time. Evolution theory originated with Darwin. We humans did not even have 200 years to process it yet. When Copernicus was persecuted for his ideas they were already thousands of years old, with work done by many a Greek and Arab researcher to verify it.
The rate of sharing information has grown exponentially in the past century and I think we humans are still legging behind ourselves a bit. I do not believe we need thousands of years to accept evolution the way we did the shape of our universe, but I wouldn't be shocked if it takes us a couple more hundreds of years before believing in creationism would be considered as moronic as believing in a flat earth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BNW: You honestly got ALL THAT from "independent research"??? Sorry, but that is downright ludicrous. *giggles*
Sissyl- Our large canine friend didn't say he got all that from independent research. Much of his post is describing what the scientific community would have to do avoid sources you call tainted or biased.
Sissyl, you have made 2 claims on this thread that are demonstrably wrong. One about the reasonable environmental record of awful regimes in the former USSR, China and Cuba. At least about the USSR this is not only mistaken but the opposite is true to an extraordinary degree. A little research will verify this.
And your claim Greenpeace organised the clubbing of seals so they can film it for propaganda purposes is just silly.
thaX has also made at least 2 factual errors, about CFCs and the last ice age.
But none of this has lead to any revision of your views. And why should it? You believe the scientific community is concealing data, biased et al when its conclusions are opposed to yours.
And if the scientific community were to go through all the rather preposterous steps Big Norse Wolf outlined and they still concluded what they do now, you still would not believe them.
Scott Betts- Its good to see someone who understands the scientific method. But as I suggested to Big Norse Wolf, we are wasting effort on this thread.
If you can show a person's premises are false and they revise their views, there is a point to discussion. If it makes no difference, there is not.
BNW: You honestly got ALL THAT from "independent research"???
No. As you should be able to see from above it came from that and several of your quotes.
You're alleging a conspiracy. Thats how far the conspiracy would have to go. That's how far you would have to remove people to sever all ties with the conspiracy.
Sorry, but that is downright ludicrous. *giggles*
Yes it is. If you're seeing a planters peanut its because my goal of holding up a mirror up to your ideas is starting to bear fruit.
In theory, everything I've listed is the only way to counter your concerns
In practice, someone would just make claims about these new groups with absolutely no basis in fact and you amd many others would wholeheartedly believe them with the same fervor that you continue to believe that Greenpeace slaughters kangaroos.
This exploration of a paper about science denialism seems relevant. It goes over five of the features common to denialism. See how many you can spot in action.