LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
What Watts, etc., do is cite some factual data, and then provide interpretations of that data that are misleading.
Last edited:
- Status
H
HarryStotle
Guest
That would entirely depend upon your dogmatic certainty regarding the direction you are currently being led.
I prefer not to pre-judge what is misleading and what isn’t.
It pretty hard to argue that the US is getting hotter, for example, when the frequency of days over 90°F, over 100°F and over 110°F has been way down compared to the 1930s.
You can, I guess, make that case if you throw out a large number of weather stations and then interpolate those based upon “more reliable” stations. Although, when those “more reliable” stations tend to always be the warmer ones, it gets pretty clear why the temperature sets have been manipulated.
Let’s not pretend that hasn’t happened with the temperature data. “Watts, etc.,” are just keeping the climate change advocates honest. Well, trying to anyway.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
By your own admission this is a claim you cannot make. All you can legitimately claim is that their interpretation conflicts with that given by those scientists you have chosen to believe. If you believe you can reasonably challenge Watts’ interpretation then you have to concede that others can legitimately challenge the interpretations given by your side.
That’s really all that’s going on here, and just as you believe you can make reasonable judgments about arguments and information, so do we all. You cannot take both positions: that only the experts can evaluate these things, and that you can do it too.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I do not claim to challenge, on my own authority, anyone’s interpretations of climate data. But I can still recognize it as something that is beyond any layman, including me, to do with any certainty.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
In other words, we must trust the experts.
And who, pray tell, is going to keep the experts honest? The consensus of experts?
As if the consensus of experts shutting down anyone who disagrees with them in order to silence them shouldn’t ring alarm bells in everyone’s heads.
If the consensus of experts is so certain of their case, they wouldn’t be going around calling those who dissent “Climate deniers!” associating them with Holocaust deniers.
They would rationally, cautiously and judiciously present their arguments with clarity and transparency. Instead they marshall children and lunatics like Extinction Rebellion to promote the cause and then sit back silently letting politicians promote crazy socialist policies that undermine the economies of developed nations. Hardly a rational approach.
Why not have forums where both sides have the opportunity to present arguments fully, clearly and transparently, including how and where the various data are being obtained and changed?
What is happening in institutions of higher learning in the west is a travesty. Leftists have taken control and seek to shut down any voices dissenting from the cancel culture narrative. Climate alarmism currently appears to be a species of that narrative.
It doesn’t help your case, at all, that on every political issue you line up with the progressive, politically correct side of the narrative.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
Oh come now, that’s exactly what you did by claiming Watt’s gave “interpretations of that data that are misleading.”
This is a bit of a bait-and-switch argument, for while it is probably true that most laymen are not capable of addressing the accuracy and validity of data or of the science behind it, they are often quite capable of understanding the validity of one method against another and certainly of comparing one argument against another.
For example, I recall a graph of ocean heat content that purported to go back to the early 60’s. This was being used to explain where the missing heat had gone during the 18 year “hiatus”. The problem of course is that there was very little good, comprehensive data until the last 15 years or so. It doesn’t take any particular scientific expertise to raise valid concerns about conclusions drawn from questionable data. The same was true of questions raised about Mann’s hockey stick with its elimination of the LIA and WMP. There is a lot more people can do than just say “tell me what to believe.”
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Modify that to “can be misleading.”
That depends on the complexity of the methods.
It does take expertise to evaluate the quality of the data. What a layman might call “valid concerns” an expert might call unfounded concern.
Except that it didn’t eliminate them.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
“They” should refer to social media posters, not climate scientists, who generally don’t bother with social media.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Are you claiming climate scientists cannot also be social media posters?HarryStotle:
“They” should refer to social media posters, not climate scientists, who generally don’t bother with social media.
Or that if they are they automatically lose their credentials as climate scientists?
You might want to speak to Michael Mann, then. I am told he regularly frequents social media and makes no qualms about denouncing others, even fellow scientists, as racists, haters, and so forth when they don’t agree with him.
Here’s an interesting one…
or
G
godisgood77
Guest
I think science is right and that we have a man made crisis on our hands.
I think the Church is right and follow its authoritative teaching on care of the Earth in Laudate Si.
I’m hopeful that the rumors of Pope getting ready to announce sins against ecology as needing to be confessed.
I’m further hopeful that Catholics will need the way in helping the rest of the world to address this crisis. Too often I hear Catholics trashing climate science… we do not need another Galileo affair.
I think the Church is right and follow its authoritative teaching on care of the Earth in Laudate Si.
I’m hopeful that the rumors of Pope getting ready to announce sins against ecology as needing to be confessed.
I’m further hopeful that Catholics will need the way in helping the rest of the world to address this crisis. Too often I hear Catholics trashing climate science… we do not need another Galileo affair.
E
Ender
Guest
The church is no more authoritative on this scientific issue than it was regarding whether the Earth revolved around the sun or vice versa.
I think the church’s position was (initially) on sounder footing with Galileo than it is today on AGW. As she pointed out at the time it was a theory that was unproven and should not be accepted until it was. Given that Galileo actually got some things wrong, that was good advice. She should reconsider that strategy today.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I don’t think you fully understand the Galileo affair.
What we don’t need is the Church capitulating to social movements merely because they are social movements.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
They can be, but generally they are not - at least not about climate change.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
My understanding of the Galileo affair is that at its core, it was not about science, but about the manner in which Galileo depicted the Pope in a very demeaning manner in his fictionalized dialog between the Pope and a true scientist, making the Pope appear ridiculously ignorant.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
Here’s a heads up for some of you…
Australia is facing the biggest drought in decades. We’re at Level 2 restrictions in the area where I live and it’s expected to go to Level 3 sooner rather than later. Some of the people to the west are on Level 6. There is no level 7. That means no watering anything. No washing cars. Only two loads per week in the washing machine. Recommended 3 minute showers or a 4" bath once a day. They are bringing water in via tankers to some towns.
We’re hardly into summer yet bush fires are some of the worst we’ve had. Vast amounts of national park around Sydney are burning. The (volunteer) bush fire brigades are stretched to the limit. The smoke is so bad they stopped ferry services on the harbour today because of bad visibility. You couldn’t see the end of my street this morning.
You can’t sit in the garden - you literally get covered in ash. The smoke is setting off fire alarms in the city. People are walking about wearing face masks for heaven’s sake. We were looking after our grandaughter today and the conditions were too bad to let her play outside.
The Murray-Darling catchment area surrounding the two main river systems in the S.E. of Australia are in catastrophic conditions right now. Not in decades to come or maybe in a few years but right now. We were warned about it in 2008 and it’s here now. Most of the dams and reservoirs are below 10% capacity. Some parts of the system have already dried up with millions of fish rotting in muddy pools where rivers used to run.
Last summer broke so many temperature records all over the state. In some towns it was over 37 C (that’s about 98 F) as a MINIMUM over 24 hours. This year is expected to be worse.
September two years ago was the driest ever and the whole of last year was the driest in over 100 years. The whole state is ready to burn.
We’d booked to go camping just after Xmas. Get the kids and grandkids out fishing, feeding the kangaroos, bush walks. Few beers around the campfire. Forget it. The campsite doesn’t now exist. Burnt out. We don’t want to risk booking anywhere else. It’s too dangerous.
We’re used to extreme conditions down here. It gets hot. It gets dry. You learn to live with it. But this is different. Nobody can remember it being this bad at any time, let alone at the begining of summer. It’s abnormal.
I don’t want my grandkids not being able to play outside. I don’t want them wearing facemasks to school. I don’t want them being afraid to go camping. I don’t want them to live with constant water restictions. I want them to play outside under a sprinker in the summer. I don’t want them to grow up thinking these conditions are normal.
We need to do something NOW. It’s already too late to get back to where we used to be. But for the love of the generations to come, we MUST not allow it to get worse.
Australia is facing the biggest drought in decades. We’re at Level 2 restrictions in the area where I live and it’s expected to go to Level 3 sooner rather than later. Some of the people to the west are on Level 6. There is no level 7. That means no watering anything. No washing cars. Only two loads per week in the washing machine. Recommended 3 minute showers or a 4" bath once a day. They are bringing water in via tankers to some towns.
We’re hardly into summer yet bush fires are some of the worst we’ve had. Vast amounts of national park around Sydney are burning. The (volunteer) bush fire brigades are stretched to the limit. The smoke is so bad they stopped ferry services on the harbour today because of bad visibility. You couldn’t see the end of my street this morning.
You can’t sit in the garden - you literally get covered in ash. The smoke is setting off fire alarms in the city. People are walking about wearing face masks for heaven’s sake. We were looking after our grandaughter today and the conditions were too bad to let her play outside.
The Murray-Darling catchment area surrounding the two main river systems in the S.E. of Australia are in catastrophic conditions right now. Not in decades to come or maybe in a few years but right now. We were warned about it in 2008 and it’s here now. Most of the dams and reservoirs are below 10% capacity. Some parts of the system have already dried up with millions of fish rotting in muddy pools where rivers used to run.
Last summer broke so many temperature records all over the state. In some towns it was over 37 C (that’s about 98 F) as a MINIMUM over 24 hours. This year is expected to be worse.
September two years ago was the driest ever and the whole of last year was the driest in over 100 years. The whole state is ready to burn.
We’d booked to go camping just after Xmas. Get the kids and grandkids out fishing, feeding the kangaroos, bush walks. Few beers around the campfire. Forget it. The campsite doesn’t now exist. Burnt out. We don’t want to risk booking anywhere else. It’s too dangerous.
We’re used to extreme conditions down here. It gets hot. It gets dry. You learn to live with it. But this is different. Nobody can remember it being this bad at any time, let alone at the begining of summer. It’s abnormal.
I don’t want my grandkids not being able to play outside. I don’t want them wearing facemasks to school. I don’t want them being afraid to go camping. I don’t want them to live with constant water restictions. I want them to play outside under a sprinker in the summer. I don’t want them to grow up thinking these conditions are normal.
We need to do something NOW. It’s already too late to get back to where we used to be. But for the love of the generations to come, we MUST not allow it to get worse.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
That’s where the incident ended up, as basically a personal feud between the pope and Galileo, but it started out as a question of truth. Initially Galileo was told he could teach heliocentrism as a theory, but not as a fact, which is just what the church should be saying today. Let’s not forget that Galileo’s theory was in fact mistaken on one key point. The church should not take positions on matters of science.
M
Metis1
Guest
Both science and Catholicism deal with seeking the Truth, so even though they approach things from different angles, they should result in the same conclusion on matters of what the evidence is showing. In this case, the well-being of billions of people on Planet Earth are at stake, and I would suggest that Jesus taught we should be concerned about them.
IOW, kudos to Pope Francis.
IOW, kudos to Pope Francis.
T
Theo520
Guest
So you believe the Australian drought is ‘man made’?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
And the the Church is not taking positions - as authorities - on science. But what the Church is doing is recognizing other scientific authorities, and applying moral teachings to those realities, just as they do with things like vaccines and the beginning of a life at conception, based on scientific knowledge of how vaccines work and how conception works. Climate change is not that different from these other areas where the Church seems to “take a position.”
E
Ender
Guest
AGW is a theory, not a reality. The church has taken a position on a scientific theory. I suspect this won’t end up any better than the last time she did this.
- Status