D
drcube
Guest
Yes, I suppose they don’t take a professional risk then.
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Here’s what a French journalist who specializes in science issues has written about the European Climate Declaration and the 500 scientists and the letter they signed (translated by Google Translate):
https://translate.google.com/transl.../2019/09/27/500-scienziati-e-13-ambasciatori/
https://translate.google.com/transl.../2019/09/27/500-scienziati-e-13-ambasciatori/
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
You gave Oreskes and Cook as your first two sources.HarryStotle:
More unscientifically gathered data?
Speaking of unscientifically gathered data.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
What specifically are your objections to the methodology of Orestes and Cook? Perhaps I can address them.LeafByNiggle:
You gave Orestes and Cook as your first two sources.HarryStotle:
More unscientifically gathered data?
Speaking of unscientifically gathered data.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I have already provided a source.
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-97-climate-consensus-myth/
On Oreskes…
Assuming IPCC conclusions in research is hardly the same as proving or corroborating them.
On Cook…
See post above that you brushed off as “unscientifically gathered data.”
Ironic, really, given that Cook’s methodology used the weasel words “implicitly suggested” to select any papers that he thought met his own cognitive bias, not “explicitly” in the text, but in his mind. The explicit criteria would have reduced the number of papers agreeing with his position would have been .0034, i.e., 0.34%. Not much of a consensus.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
Many thanks for responding to the points in the letter itself!!!
The exaggerations are mostly done by the media, you’ve acknowledged this on numerous occasions. The scientists have a responsibility to push back against exaggerations and misrepresentations of their research.
Maybe and maybe not. A couple of tree ring proxies won’t give accurate temps (highs/lows/ yr average) for the globe.
When you miss the target by half, it tells us there are serious flaws in the models, and that has not been acknowledged.
Don’t follow you on this response. They said the science is too unsettled to justify drastic policy changes.
LOL, but it seems you acknowledge there is of now no data, or statistical reason to believe they will.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The ones who don’t require kowtowing to the paying narrative to maintain funding.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
C
Cathoholic
Guest
drcube . . . .
Sure ya do. (Yet another moving of the goal posts.)
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No they don’t. Research scientists have better things to do than to scour the media for misrepresentations and correct them all. There are too many of them.Many thanks for responding to the points in the letter itself!!!
LeafByNiggle:
The exaggerations are mostly done by the media, you’ve acknowledged this on numerous occasions. The scientists have a responsibility to push back against exaggerations…
Then my point is made.
Why half? Half of what? Sounds pretty arbitrary to me.
That is their opinion on policy. And remember we are still dealing with an unscientifically choose set of people. This matters if you are going to appeal to their authority.
No, I did not acknowledge that at all. It is a reasonable conclusion given what we know about what drives storms. We know, for instance, that hurricane season is when the ocean is the warmest. We know that warmer oceans produce stronger hurricanes. And we know the oceans are getting warmer. We don’t have to wait until it is crystal clear from what would then be history that storms did indeed increase in frequency and intensity.
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
The predicted increase in frequency and intensity in hurricanes following Katrina in 2005 did not occur for over a decade. Another failed prediction.
Cue Leaf moving the goalposts with this one.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Show me where the goalposts were firmly planted. Cite the specific projection from an original source.LeafByNiggle:
The predicted increase in frequency and intensity in hurricanes following Katrina in 2005 did not occur for over a decade. Another failed prediction.
Cue Leaf moving the goalposts with this one.
Last edited:
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
https://www.alternet.org/2005/09/a_moral_moment/
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060313/full/news060313-12.html
Al Gore firmly planted the goalposts. Politician, certainly but his word carried a lot of weight back then and the AGW’ers threw their weight behind them. You know this, you were likely part of that cohort back then.
While we’re at it, let’s throw a nicely documented article on climate change fraud out there:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/global-warming-fraud-exposed-pictures
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060313/full/news060313-12.html
Al Gore firmly planted the goalposts. Politician, certainly but his word carried a lot of weight back then and the AGW’ers threw their weight behind them. You know this, you were likely part of that cohort back then.
While we’re at it, let’s throw a nicely documented article on climate change fraud out there:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/global-warming-fraud-exposed-pictures
R
RCIAGraduate
Guest
Isn’t it suspicious because the leader or one of the leaders around this is involved with the oil and gas industry (although I heard that even the oil and gas industries have been coming around) and the fact that some of are engineers which isn’t as relevant? Also, non-practicing here but what about the fact that Pope Francis has written an encyclical that discussed climate change, sorry to put the pressure but isn’t this something where even the Pope is calling for something to be addressed?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I’m not defending Al Gore. I’m defending scientists. I find it interesting that you have to go to politicians and the media to get examples of alarmism. It says something about the weakness of your case.
He’s got just one point: charts have a starting point and look different if the starting point is different. But when properly interpreted, these charts are not misleading. In fact, I think the authors choice of starting point for the sea level rise is more misleading than the one that he thought was supposedly bad.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
RCIAGraduate . . .
We as humanity I think, all want to address the issues.
But unfortunately some invent Fake issues.
Or exaggerated issues.
Or politicize various issues.
It is those aspects people like me are concerned over.
And magnifying the problem is leftists in society, who are so wedded to themselves they even invent their own reality (i.e. a guy two weeks ago, a gal last week, and now a guy again this week. – Gender fluidity).
It is non-sense.
Compounding the issue, is when people who invent their own reality, get told that the Emperor is not wearing anything but his proverbial underwear, they get miffed.
They are like a wrecking ball. Firing scientists and TV personalities, and others who want to have real dialogue.
With some leftists real dialogue is impossible.
And showing them their truths, but also their FALSEHOODS (because much of what they say is masked as PARTIAL TRUTH) causes great discomfort for them.
It causes cognitive dissonance.
And so to battle that instead of conforming to reality, they lash out harder. Trash more people personally. Dox them in social media (or even in the newspapers as one Eastern paper did against some local fire arms owners).
Rage becomes part of their spirituality so to speak. A subtle rage (until they have enough power to toss off the mask).
And that is what you see with the whole global warming game.
Back to Pope Francis.
Go back and look at the bullet points.
Nobody there is contradicting Pope Francis.
Who here has left the issue unaddressed?
We as humanity I think, all want to address the issues.
But unfortunately some invent Fake issues.
Or exaggerated issues.
Or politicize various issues.
It is those aspects people like me are concerned over.
And magnifying the problem is leftists in society, who are so wedded to themselves they even invent their own reality (i.e. a guy two weeks ago, a gal last week, and now a guy again this week. – Gender fluidity).
It is non-sense.
Compounding the issue, is when people who invent their own reality, get told that the Emperor is not wearing anything but his proverbial underwear, they get miffed.
They are like a wrecking ball. Firing scientists and TV personalities, and others who want to have real dialogue.
With some leftists real dialogue is impossible.
And showing them their truths, but also their FALSEHOODS (because much of what they say is masked as PARTIAL TRUTH) causes great discomfort for them.
It causes cognitive dissonance.
And so to battle that instead of conforming to reality, they lash out harder. Trash more people personally. Dox them in social media (or even in the newspapers as one Eastern paper did against some local fire arms owners).
Rage becomes part of their spirituality so to speak. A subtle rage (until they have enough power to toss off the mask).
And that is what you see with the whole global warming game.
Back to Pope Francis.
Go back and look at the bullet points.
Nobody there is contradicting Pope Francis.
Last edited:
D
drcube
Guest
Yea, I did. I run close enough to those circles that I wanted to see who signed it.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
drcube . . .
Fair enough drcube. (Now you can.)
Last edited:
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
Al Gore defended certain scientists. You’re defending the same scientists.
Same ol’, same ol’
At least you admit scientists can cherry pick starting points to make their thesis look good. They’ve been known to do that on the AGW side as well as the anti-AGW side. Which is essentially the point of the article.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That only works on the unscientific. When scientists look at charts they always look at the axes, the labels, the ranges, and consider the implications of those factors. They don’t just look at a shape of a pretty picture.
- Status