Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
    Climate Change: Robust Evidence of Causes and Impacts very interesting, this could be the truth however in this day and age it is so hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. sometimes studies are funded by actors with a dog in the race. hard to tell .
    EVERYONE has a dog in this race. Scientists are human too. What deniers ignore (deliberately) is that the scientific method is intended to reduce or eliminate bias in experiments. Peer review works because scientists are humans and are just as eager to prove another scientist wrong as any combatant in the politics threads here. Most papers deniers cite are not peer reviewed.

    Similarly, the contention that scientists profit from climate change science doesn't pass the sniff test. The billions in the fossil fuel industry is orders of magnitude larger than the millions up for grabs in research grants. Scientists are also required to account for all expenditures against said grants. The easiest way for a climate scientist to become rich is to go work for an oil company.

    If you look hard enough, everyone has a conflict of interest here somewhere. But at some point Occam's Razor has to kick in and prevent descent into conspiracy theory.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

      EVERYONE has a dog in this race. Scientists are human too. What deniers ignore (deliberately) is that the scientific method is intended to reduce or eliminate bias in experiments. Peer review works because scientists are humans and are just as eager to prove another scientist wrong as any combatant in the politics threads here. Most papers deniers cite are not peer reviewed.
      You start with a logical fallacy, that amounts to an appeal to popularity. The "scientific method" doesn't eliminate bias in experiments. It is simply a systematic set of steps towards scientific inquiry. Bias is eliminated by statistical methodology to the extent that various factors can be accounted for.
      As for peer review, it's nearly a worthless process. Plagiarism and unoriginal thought abound. The most virulent counter to that isn't peer review, it's review by computer using software that will look over a paper sentence for sentence and compare it to thousands of other papers. The result of that has been a massive increase in retractions and corrections in papers in all areas of research.

      Similarly, the contention that scientists profit from climate change science doesn't pass the sniff test. The billions in the fossil fuel industry is orders of magnitude larger than the millions up for grabs in research grants. Scientists are also required to account for all expenditures against said grants. The easiest way for a climate scientist to become rich is to go work for an oil company.
      Another logical fallacy, appeal to wealth. Even small fry can do bad science to get paid for it. Saw that personally several decades back when I worked as a contractor for a number of research firms doing their maintenance and install work. They did all sorts of squirrelly stuff. What was important to most of them was getting more contracts in the door for research, rather than doing really good research.

      If you look hard enough, everyone has a conflict of interest here somewhere. But at some point Occam's Razor has to kick in and prevent descent into conspiracy theory.
      Occam's Razor here would tend to say that you should be skeptical of research by persons who won't show their work, or participate in political groups related to their work, like James Hanson.

      Comment


      • I can't think of one of hundreds of credible "deniers" who ever said anthropogenic warming wasn't happening. So much for the conspiracy theory that says denial is a conspiracy theory. All that is being denied is that the current state of climate science is reliable enough to make appropriate changes to the economy. The bias is with those who never saw a fossil fuel company they didn't hate.
        We hunt the hunters

        Comment


        • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
          I can't think of one of hundreds of credible "deniers" who ever said anthropogenic warming wasn't happening. So much for the conspiracy theory that says denial is a conspiracy theory. All that is being denied is that the current state of climate science is reliable enough to make appropriate changes to the economy. The bias is with those who never saw a fossil fuel company they didn't hate.
          Not sure what to say to this. The initial wave of climate change denial was ALL about denying it was happening. Then denying it was anthropogenic. It's only recently that resistance has moved from denial to debate about how to mitigate the changes.

          Just to be clear, I believe debate about mitigation strategies are entirely appropriate and necessary.

          There's all sorts of bias out there. Yes, there are those that will use the crisis to grind an axe wrt fossil fuel companies. Add to that groups of people that own oil stock. And fanatical eco-warriors. etc, etc. And those who own stock in renewables. And the very large group of humanity that generally dislike change in any form.

          Comment


          • What should be made clear is that there is overwhelming evidence that scientist on both side of the global warming issue are influenced by politics and personal interests. Yet amongst the majority of those that should be considered credible their views are less extreme than how those views are presented by political activist and the media.

            Very few of the credible scientist that support dangerous global warming as imminent consider it an existential threat to mankind.

            Very few of the credible scientist who believe the threat of dangerous global warming has been exaggerated believe that anthropogenic warming has not or will not take place.

            Unless you have carefully studied the science behind climate change it is hard to appreciate the complexity not only of the subject matter but of the models used to predict it's course. The general population for all intents and purposes is scientifically illiterate. Even among the scientific community itself the number of scientist that have carefully studied climate change is very small. An even smaller number is those in the climate science field itself who are not so specialized as to be incapable of rendering a reasonable judgement on such a complex and chaotic subject.

            Do not be fooled by those that say it is a simply matter of physics. One only need to consider how much carbon is locked up in limestone to understand that the question of climate change is not a question for physics but for biology informed by physics. Ask yourself why after billions have been spent on cancer research cancer remains. Our science has proven to be for the most part inadequate to deal with complex chaotic systems in a comprehensive way. In the case of climate change we are not just dealing with how gases react in the atmosphere but how life reacts to those changes. Life and weather are two of the most complex systems we have ever tried to understand.

            You should also not be fooled by the a media that either dismisses or reinforces conspiracy theories dependent on what is politically expedient. Anytime more than two people get together it is likely that there is some level of conspiracy between at least two of them and equally likely three and exponentially. That is the human condition and it is neither good nor bad it just is. Proof of or proof against conspiracy is proof of nothing. Conspiracy theories unless they rise to the level of paranoia are simply intuitive good judgement when rendered by competent people. For the most part they should be given the benefit of the doubt not as to the validity of the circumstances but as to conspiracies actually existing. Like with everything the devil is in the details not in sweeping generalizations.

            It is extraordinarily arrogant to hold any hard position on global warming.







            We hunt the hunters

            Comment



            • The World’s Most-Profitable Hedge Fund Is Now a Climate Radical

              Comment


              • Tech giants power record surge in renewable energy sales

                Comment


                • World’s first liquid hydrogen fuel cell cruise ship planned for Norway’s fjords

                  Comment


                  • Eight inches of "global warming" covering my part of Colorado.
                    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                    Comment


                    • The deniers say “you can’t use a single event” as a justification of increased global warming.

                      Then turn around and say “geez it’s quite cold today... what global warming nonsense.”

                      Oh the irony.
                      "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
                      Ernest Hemingway.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post
                        The deniers say “you can’t use a single event” as a justification of increased global warming.

                        Then turn around and say “geez it’s quite cold today... what global warming nonsense.”

                        Oh the irony.
                        A few decades ago when the "human-caused"/"Anthropogenic" Climate Change/Global Warming Scam got started, we were told that up here in the Pacific North-West(of North America continent)~PNW; our Winters would become like those in Southern Californian. Living in So. CA back then I know what their winters were like and we are far colder and wetter than those ever were; so score first point of false predictions from so-called "experts".

                        This is all based on a physical and chemical foundation positing that a slight increase in energy/heat retention of ONE MOLECULE will equally transfer to the 2,499 other molecules in the atmospheric composition ratio, hence producing atmospheric warming and hence resulting in global/planetary warming.

                        For decades now we've had a body of self-proclaimed "experts" trying to make the case for human cause to a Natural Cycle, in pursuit of the funding (follow the money/dollar trail) offered for such "confirmation". Their motives for such deviation from "real science" rarely questioned.

                        Meanwhile, for decades we have legions of blind following supporters of the ACC/AGW scam doing their best to advance this false science and harmful agenda while never once engaging in actual lifestyle practices consistent with such positions or "beliefs".

                        Therein lies the real irony, or more correctly; hypocrisy!

                        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post
                          The deniers say “you can’t use a single event” as a justification of increased global warming.

                          Then turn around and say “geez it’s quite cold today... what global warming nonsense.”

                          Oh the irony.
                          As usual, lack of precision and correct detail, hence not-scientific!

                          Do you refer to NATURAL "Climate Change" as shown in cyclic physical records of past hundreds of thousands of years ???
                          ... OR ...
                          Unproven Hypothesis of "human caused"/Anthropogenic Climate Change/Global Warming supposedly only resulting from past century or two of human industrial activity?

                          Without a pre-qualifier you engage the usual vague and inaccurate hyperbole common to the emotional driven and logic lacking looney-Left Wing Luddites. No surprise there.
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                          Comment


                          • One wonders how people KNOW that the climate changed in the past? If you’re talking about physical data, as from ice core samples.... isn’t that mostly gathered by climate scientists? I mean, they could be lying, right?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                              A few decades ago when the "human-caused"/"Anthropogenic" Climate Change/Global Warming Scam got started, we were told that up here in the Pacific North-West(of North America continent)~PNW; our Winters would become like those in Southern Californian. Living in So. CA back then I know what their winters were like and we are far colder and wetter than those ever were; so score first point of false predictions from so-called "experts".

                              This is all based on a physical and chemical foundation positing that a slight increase in energy/heat retention of ONE MOLECULE will equally transfer to the 2,499 other molecules in the atmospheric composition ratio, hence producing atmospheric warming and hence resulting in global/planetary warming.

                              For decades now we've had a body of self-proclaimed "experts" trying to make the case for human cause to a Natural Cycle, in pursuit of the funding (follow the money/dollar trail) offered for such "confirmation". Their motives for such deviation from "real science" rarely questioned.

                              Meanwhile, for decades we have legions of blind following supporters of the ACC/AGW scam doing their best to advance this false science and harmful agenda while never once engaging in actual lifestyle practices consistent with such positions or "beliefs".

                              Therein lies the real irony, or more correctly; hypocrisy!
                              One has to distinguish between Causes aND DEALING WITH eFFECTS, G DAVID. .In 525, the year of 'Ye dense fog sent by Godde,'the great change was "The Wrath upon the non faithfull,' according to Gildas- but they toughed it through...
                              Today, we can adjust the world, to a degree- but we still have to recognise the concern....
                              BTW- welcome back....
                              The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DingBat View Post
                                One wonders how people KNOW that the climate changed in the past? If you’re talking about physical data, as from ice core samples.... isn’t that mostly gathered by climate scientists? I mean, they could be lying, right?
                                They’re dead wrong failures about predicting what the climate will do when temperatures rise fact is nothing significant has happened and won’t for the foreseeable future
                                In other words remain calm and relax the world isn’t coming to an end don’t believe the hype they haven’t earned the respect that they demand from us due to their failures to predict their theories
                                Last edited by Snowshoveler; 07 Feb 20, 18:48.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X