Climate Change - General Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-04-2017, 10:08 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(05-04-2017 02:21 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  About the congressional hearing last Wednesday:

"At one point, when Mann described an article that had been published in Science magazine, Smith responded that 'is not known as an objective magazine.' "

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-climate-sc...fight.html

Smith is correct. I have lost track of time, but it was 12 to 15 years ago when I quit the American Association for the Advancement of Science, mainly due to the emotional editorializing in its journal.

In an attempt to win me back as a member, I was sent a copy of Science with an editorial whining about the science community’s inability to communicate with the public. Too damn funny. This just confirmed that my decision to quit was logical, objective, and scientific. Oh, and should have been made years earlier.

Remember all the time those physicists and engineers at Bell Labs spent discussing how to communicate with the public before announcing their invention of the transistor, in 1947. Again, it is too funny to even think about it.

And Georges Lemaitre spent half his life making sure that his mathematics was understood not only by his students, but by all Catholic priests, bishops and nuns the world over. Praise Jesus.

I coauthored a Science paper in 1977 when I was in the federal lab system. Some of the chemistry was interesting, but it was really an example of busy work performed by government scientists. I left the government two years later.

I put Science right up there with Scientific American.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2017, 10:54 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
"Science was a general science magazine published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). It was intended to "bridge the distance between science and citizen", aimed at a technically literate audience who may not work professionally in the sciences. The AAAS also publishes the famous science journal Science, the similar name leading to some confusion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_%28magazine%29
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
07-04-2017, 07:08 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(19-03-2017 02:02 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Look up a YouTube Red movie called "The Thinning"

They install population controls through testing for the brightest kids. If you don't do well on test, you are killed.

I just saw an ad for that movie today before a YouTube video, and it took me a minute before I remembered where I'd seen it mentioned before. That's some pretty draconian shit!

“Until you make the unconscious
conscious, it will direct your life and you will
call it fate.”― C.G. Jung
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2017, 07:24 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
Let’s go back to the 20th Century.

In the 1970s, the Michael Crichtons, Richard Lindzens and William Happers of the biochemistry and medical communities were ignored and dismissed by politicians, mainstream scientists, and the media. All they did was express skepticism of the lipid/heart hypothesis, a consensus belief system with no basis in science. The fact that some were members of the National Academy of Sciences was irrelevant.

They also expressed concern over reducing the percent of saturated fat in the human diet. At the time, that fat was a significant, and with families like my own, the major source of calories. What was going to be the effect of cutting the percentage of this component? What will replace that fat? Should we be recommending this reduction without any scientific data and observations? Should we test this first on a limited basis before recommending it to 200 million people?

It was a religious, fingers crossed moment in Post World War II American science with no one knowing what to expect. Religion won. Skepticism lost.

Imagine if a biochemical Happer had said, publicly, that what his colleagues were forced to call the French Paradox was not a paradox at all. What if the French had been protecting themselves from the negative effects of sugar and grain with all that butter, cream and duck fat. That would have been viewed as heresy by 97%, make that 99.8%, of nutrition “scientists”. We could have watched a very reasonable and simple scientific thought producing gnashing teeth and irritable bowels in all those who were members of the consensus. Delicious.

And too damn funny. However, no one from the mainstream medical and science communities, the media, Congress, processed food companies and the upstart low fat / fat free industry would have been laughing. They would have simply done all they could to stop any funding of these heretics. I have no doubt that many of these scientists repented, giving up their status as objective skeptics to join the ranks of the saturated fat fear mongers.

I do not know if there was a concerted effort to smear and ruin the reputation of these nutrition heretics back in the 1970s. However, I have my doubts that it was a kinder, gentler consensus back then.

That consensus was simply religious fundamentalism dressed in a secular science costume. Started in the 1950s and alive and well 60 years later. And no whining from atheist, skeptic and rationalist communities. Interesting.

Oh, wait. This is about climate science. Never mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2017, 07:31 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(08-04-2017 07:24 AM)Walter Wrote:  Oh, wait. This is about climate science. Never mind.

Arguments from analogy are pretty weak, don't you think?

Instead of taking that route, why don't you tell us why you think 97% of climate scientists are wrong. Then we can have a discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thoreauvian's post
08-04-2017, 05:15 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
Walter

The 1970's saw great advancements in computers and other hardware that made measurement and calculation easier for scientists. Many discoveries in physics were made possible by the development of the integrated circuit and the laser. In 1970, Arthur Ashkin developed optical trapping, a process which captures individual atoms using lasers, leading to huge advancements in experimentation in physics. Fiber optics were also developed in 1970, setting the stage for a new era of telecommunications. Even the humble pocket calculator served an important role in discovery in the 1970's; the marketing of the pocket calculator drove the production of large-scale integrated circuit development, which sparked the rise of the computer, shaping discovery in the 21st century

Do you think the things I posted add any validity to what climate scientists have discovered ?

Everything you said could be true and yet has nothing to do with climate science.

If there is something about the global climate you don't understand, just ask.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2017, 10:40 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
"The planet is on the brink of the sixth mass extinction, an epoch that scientists say could see humans wiping out at least 75 percent of the Earth’s species. Much has already been made of humans’ impact on wildlife. Last year, a damning World Wildlife Fund report revealed that people were on track to killing off two-thirds of the world’s vertebrates."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/glob...0a02e0c39?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
12-04-2017, 04:21 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
Top Ten Climate Myth vs What the Science Says:

1 "Climate's changed before"
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

2 "It's the sun"
In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions

3 "It's not bad"
Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.

4 "There is no consensus"
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

5 "It's cooling"
The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.

6 "Models are unreliable"
Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

7 "Temp record is unreliable"
The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.

8 "Animals and plants can adapt"
Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.

9 "It hasn't warmed since 1998"
Every part of the Earth's climate system has continued warming since 1998, with 2015 shattering temperature records.

10 "Antarctica is gaining ice"
Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
12-04-2017, 10:13 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
Gavin Schmidt, Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies:
"There is indeed overwhelming evidence for warming in the last century. [Judith] Curry’s claim that no one knows the attribution of this to human impacts is not a valid description of the state of knowledge. There are indeed plenty of studies that use statistical or model-based fingerprints to assess this and they overwhelmingly find a dominance of human activities over natural forcings or internal variability. For the more recent period (1950 onwards) the claims are even stronger—that effectively all the warming is caused by human activity with only a ~10% uncertainty due to internal variability. One can always find something to disagree with in such a statement, but disagreement in the absence of any quantitative result to the contrary is not worth much."

Scientists' reactions to the House Science Committee hearing on climate change http://climatefeedback.org/scientists-re...e-science/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thoreauvian's post
12-04-2017, 10:17 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(08-04-2017 07:24 AM)Walter Wrote:  Let’s go back to the 20th Century.

In the 1970s, the Michael Crichtons, Richard Lindzens and William Happers of the biochemistry and medical communities were ignored and dismissed by politicians, mainstream scientists, and the media. All they did was express skepticism of the lipid/heart hypothesis, a consensus belief system with no basis in science. The fact that some were members of the National Academy of Sciences was irrelevant.

They also expressed concern over reducing the percent of saturated fat in the human diet. At the time, that fat was a significant, and with families like my own, the major source of calories. What was going to be the effect of cutting the percentage of this component? What will replace that fat? Should we be recommending this reduction without any scientific data and observations? Should we test this first on a limited basis before recommending it to 200 million people?

It was a religious, fingers crossed moment in Post World War II American science with no one knowing what to expect. Religion won. Skepticism lost.

Imagine if a biochemical Happer had said, publicly, that what his colleagues were forced to call the French Paradox was not a paradox at all. What if the French had been protecting themselves from the negative effects of sugar and grain with all that butter, cream and duck fat. That would have been viewed as heresy by 97%, make that 99.8%, of nutrition “scientists”. We could have watched a very reasonable and simple scientific thought producing gnashing teeth and irritable bowels in all those who were members of the consensus. Delicious.

And too damn funny. However, no one from the mainstream medical and science communities, the media, Congress, processed food companies and the upstart low fat / fat free industry would have been laughing. They would have simply done all they could to stop any funding of these heretics. I have no doubt that many of these scientists repented, giving up their status as objective skeptics to join the ranks of the saturated fat fear mongers.

I do not know if there was a concerted effort to smear and ruin the reputation of these nutrition heretics back in the 1970s. However, I have my doubts that it was a kinder, gentler consensus back then.

That consensus was simply religious fundamentalism dressed in a secular science costume. Started in the 1950s and alive and well 60 years later. And no whining from atheist, skeptic and rationalist communities. Interesting.

Oh, wait. This is about climate science. Never mind.

"Let’s go back to the 20th Century."

No, let's get back to the 21st century and the science behind climate change and the anthropogenic influence. Whatever your experiences are in an unrelated field of science are from decades ago, they aren't relevant. This is literally the same excuse I see from creationists who try and bash science they don't like. So if you're going to argue that the science behind climate change is flawed, you need to start there with the most recent concepts, models, and hypotheses.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: