Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 28655 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #495 on: May 15, 2019, 10:31:10 pm »
Shh... why bother when TimG has conceded.
 I do feel the case has been made that human emitted CO2 is contributing to a warming planet that creates a risk that we should not ignore

Now perhaps we can finally move on to constructive mitigation and adaptation.

Wishful thinking apparently. Not unexpected though.

Stay tuned. :)

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #496 on: May 15, 2019, 11:51:17 pm »
Like your irrational hatred of Israel?

off topic - **** off!
Agree Agree x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #497 on: May 16, 2019, 12:17:57 am »
Sorry, but you can't deny the humanity of the scientists by saying they weren't annoyed by their opposition.  They clearly were.

But it doesn't matter on the whole.

no - again, you are the one elevating the circumstance "of a few" into the broader whole - that world-wide network of honest/reputable/honorable scientists working directly in or peripheral to climate change fields. You are the one playing directly into member TimG's purposeful intent to demean the integrity of ALL scientists... to cast doubt/suspicion on peer-review and prevailing science.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #498 on: May 16, 2019, 12:30:29 am »
So we're on the same page there.
Shh... why bother when TimG has conceded.
 I do feel the case has been made that human emitted CO2 is contributing to a warming planet that creates a risk that we should not ignore

no - that TimG statement is..... meaningless - the ultimate greenwashing from a guy who denies that contribution he "accepts" is actually the principal causal tie to GW/CC. What degree of contribution, hey TimG - what degree?  ;D Typical TimG vagueness that plays right into his, "do-nothing, delay any action at all costs" prattle. Even when you manage to corner member TimG into actually addressing the practicality, logistics, timelines, etc., of his perpetual "AdaptOnly" bleating, he won't commit to adapting to anything on any timeline!


Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #499 on: May 16, 2019, 01:14:52 am »
We don't know what goes on behind the scenes but scientists like Judith Curry and Robert Pielke have talked about the abuse they received from colleagues  for talking a less alarmist approach. Both decided to leave the field rather than put up with it.

 ;D "less alarmist approach"! Notwithstanding it's Roger (not Robert) Pielke (and Jr., not his father Sr.), his work/analysis couldn't stand the challenge test; notwithstanding he was a political scientist focused on policy, not a climate scientist. Forever remembered for this monumental bonehead statement: "In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather."

as for the darling of blogScience... and Congressional Republican's as their regular go-to "expert", Curry favoured... make that reveled in, confrontation. Her positions were rightly challenged - how could they not be! Of course, as you've shown over the years by repeatedly quoting her or linking to her blog, she's your personal mentor! It's clearly where you copied her calling into question that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change, where you've parroted her support for an emphasis on natural climate variability, etc.. In any case, you speak to her retirement from academia as "leaving the field" - it seems others suggest she became a liability to the University/tenured position she held - perhaps not a particularly sound choice for a PhD candidate to have her as an advisor!

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #500 on: May 16, 2019, 01:43:38 am »
There is the story of skeptical scientist that was sacked by his university for daring to dispute the alarmist narrative. The university claims his views had nothing to do with it but a court dismissed all of the universities defenses as nonsense: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-16/jcu-scientist-peter-ridd-sacking-unlawful-federal-court-judgment/11021554

no - that's your fake-skeptic/denier spin on the ruling. Notwithstanding the university has given suggestion of an intent to appeal, the judge's ruling itself counters your bullshyte; from the ruling judgement:

Quote
Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. Others have thought that this trial was about the manner in which academics should conduct themselves. Some observers may have thought that this trial was about the use of non-offensive words when promulgating scientific ideas. Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views.

Though many of those issues were canvased and discussed throughout the hearing of this matter, this trial was about none of the above. Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an Enterprise Agreement. Whilst the Court acknowledges that there may be consequences that touch upon these other issues because of the Court’s construction of that clause, none of those consequences can play any part in the determination of the proper construction of that clause.

principal interpretations have the University's focus on Ridd's failures to adhere to a 'code of conduct' being usurped by a 'terms & conditions' clause within an employment agreement... not your bullshyte claim the guy was sacked for, as you say, "daring to dispute the alarmist narrative". More pointedly, scientists routinely challenge/push-back on the statements/positions taken by Ridd - for example: Top marine scientists defend attack on Great Barrier Reef research

 

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #501 on: May 16, 2019, 02:23:05 am »
principal interpretations have the University's focus on Ridd's failures to adhere to a 'code of conduct' being usurped by a 'terms & conditions' clause within an employment agreement.
Terns that would have never been enforced if he had not dared to question the glorious consensus. My argument is about double standards that are used to punish academics that fail to adhere to the consensus orthodoxy.

BTW: your attempt to spin the ruling is fiction.

The Court ordered that:
1. The 17 findings made by the University, the two speech directions, the five confidentiality directions, the no satire direction, the censure and the final censure given by the University and the termination of employment of Professor Ridd by the University were all unlawful.
2. The issue of the making of declarations and penalty are adjourned to a date to be fixed.

Every argument the university made was rejected. It was not an obscure technical ruling.

The judge even criticized the university, who spent a million dollars trying to martyr Ridd, for not even attempting to address his complaints about shoddy science:

Quote
Today, Judge Vasta asked how it could be that James Cook University – a recipient of so many billions of dollars over the years – could leave no stone unturned in its disciplinary process against Peter Ridd, while doing absolutely nothing to address his complaints about the lack of quality assurance of its research.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 02:51:20 am by TimG »


Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #503 on: May 16, 2019, 05:55:16 am »
... demean the integrity of ALL scientists... to cast doubt/suspicion on peer-review and prevailing science.

I don't think it demeans all scientists when you say 'scientists are human and fallible'.  They WILL insult, and be petty like anyone else.... Waldo.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #504 on: May 16, 2019, 06:25:17 am »
Those are two unrelated things. i.e. paper making claims about the influence of climate on storms can be complete nonsense even if the basic physics is correct. I call this kind of lazy thinking the 'bait and switch'. i.e. people take something that is well supported by science and then use it to claim that unrelated claim must also be true. It is nonsense. Science does not work that way. Each claim is evaluated on its own merits.

You seem to be disqualifying the idea that a physical effect can be verified using statistical analysis.  There is no reason to do so.  The counter claims against it can be part of the discussion as with your non-analagous example of storms.  This appears to be a simpler relation than weather overall.  To say it's unrelated is basically a subversion of the discussion that would happen in peer review.

"CO2 greenhouse effect does occur in the laboratory but you can't use that to examine the macro effect of CO2 in the atmosphere because... they are unrelated" Really ?  Can we at least start with the laboratory effect and use that to examine the correlation of CO2 in atmosphere with temperature ?  I guess not ?
 ???

Quote
You can't prove a statistical analysis is false unless you can do experimental replication. All you can do in climate science is criticize the methods which is a purely subjective exercise. That is why it is so easy for alarmist scientists to dismiss skeptical papers. There is always some quibble that they can use as an excuse to declare it "debunked". The fact that their own papers have similar issues is shamelessly ignored.

No you can't "prove" it but that is immaterial.  There is no laboratory that mimics our atmosphere 100% and so you can effectively use this maxim to deny any action on climate change. 

Quote

You miss the point. Someone claimed a skeptical paper was wrong because it did "curve fitting" but the same criticism applies to almost every paper produced by alarmists like Michael Mann but his papers are taken seriously. The only difference is Mann supports the alarmists narrative so his crappy statistical methods are ignored. It is a painfully obvious double standard.

"Curve fitting" sounds a generic term for qualitative smoothing and - yes - some of that is valid and some isn't.  It's like discounting error - you can do it correctly or incorrectly and it's subject to discussion.  Unless we have the specific example it's hard to say and no I don't want it.  I already have an assignment.

Quote
We don't know what goes on behind the scenes but scientists like Judith Curry and Robert Pielke have talked about the abuse they received from colleagues  for talking a less alarmist approach

But wait.  You seem to be saying that scientists are abused BECAUSE they disagree with the consensus right ?  If I find some scientists that disagree but are also respected doesn't that disprove your assumption here ?

Quote
The problem is the chill in the current environment that could lead to paths of research being dropped as soon as the academic realizes it would be impossible to get it through the alarmists who are the gatekeepers at many journals.

Or... nobody wants to fund something that doesn't have much science behind it - only politics.  There were some strong alternatives that didn't stand up to peer review.

You yourself accept the science so why are you expecting people to be publishing papers that dispute it ?  It's a paradox.

Quote
Why should alarmist papers be taken anymore seriously if these flaws were show stoppers?

I would put to you: if someone found a correlation between temperature and some other factor (say sunspots) then that would definitely be accepted even though the same "flawed" (your word) method was used.
 
Quote
the extremely bad alarmist papers which are treated as gospel because they support the narrative. I would he happy if people would learn to understand the limitations of the methods available and the kind of certainties claimed are not legitimate.

Almost none of the denialist chatter I read from "the" public (ie. the popular fora discussing climate change) mention statistical analysis as being a flawed way to look at physical science.  Instead, I am more likely to read that George Soros is funding lying scientists for his world domination scheme.

You agree with the science, but you hate socialists.  Most of the vocal denialists are garbage-minded but also hate socialists.  You have to pick a team and unfortunately for you it's not the one you like.

I would prefer you limit your response to this post to something shorter if you can as I spent 20 minutes writing this, which is 100% of my posting time for today.  I would rather spend time looking at the critics of climate change and how they were received, thanks.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #505 on: May 16, 2019, 08:50:05 am »
"Curve fitting" sounds a generic term for qualitative smoothing and - yes - some of that is valid and some isn't.  It's like discounting error - you can do it correctly or incorrectly and it's subject to discussion.  Unless we have the specific example it's hard to say and no I don't want it.
Mann produces papers that takes datasets which may or may not have as correlation with temperature, applies statistical algorithms that weight the data by their correlation with temperatures in modern times and simply assumes that the same correlation is valid over the entire dataset without any supporting evidence. The net result is feeding random noise into the algorithm produces the same result. In theory, objective scientists should have looked at his techniques and recognized that they produce nothing meaningful and ignore his papers. However, since his results are politically useful the quibbles with his techniques are ignored and his glorified curve fitting is celebrated.

We can (and have) produced pages of text arguing about the merits of Manns papers but all this does is prove that quibbling about statistical methods applied to datasets that cannot be re-created on demand is a purely subjective exercise. In the real world, this means alarmist scientists can always find excuses to reject skeptical lines of argument and why practicing academics have no incentive to invest their time in exploring these lines of evidence. The net result is the public interest in undermined and climate science cannot produce the research that we need to really understand the limits of our knowledge.

You agree with the science, but you hate socialists.  Most of the vocal denialists are garbage-minded but also hate socialists.  You have to pick a team and unfortunately for you it's not the one you like.
I see no difference between people rambling about "big oil" conspiracies and people going on about Soros. I see no difference between a moron that screams "denier" whenever someone questions some aspect of climate policy and a moron that claims that AGW is a UN plot. These people exist on all sides. Why do they have to prevent us from having a more nuanced discussion of what we know and what we do not?
« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 09:19:09 am by TimG »

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #506 on: May 16, 2019, 09:45:42 am »
There is the story of skeptical scientist that was sacked by his university for daring to dispute the alarmist narrative.
BTW: your attempt to spin the ruling is fiction.

no - providing you the judge's wording, verbatim, is not spinning anything! Again, direct from the judge's ruling:
Quote
Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. Others have thought that this trial was about the manner in which academics should conduct themselves. Some observers may have thought that this trial was about the use of non-offensive words when promulgating scientific ideas. Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views.

Though many of those issues were canvased and discussed throughout the hearing of this matter, this trial was about none of the above. Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an Enterprise Agreement. Whilst the Court acknowledges that there may be consequences that touch upon these other issues because of the Court’s construction of that clause, none of those consequences can play any part in the determination of the proper construction of that clause.

Terns that would have never been enforced if he had not dared to question the glorious consensus.

 ;D nothing sweeter to see what's behind the/your curtain!


again, as I said: principal interpretations of the ruling have the University's focus on Ridd's failures to adhere to a 'code of conduct' being usurped by a 'terms & conditions' clause within an employment agreement... not your bullshyte claim the guy was sacked for, as you say, "daring to dispute the alarmist narrative". More pointedly, scientists routinely challenge/push-back on the statements/positions taken by Ridd - for example: Top marine scientists defend attack on Great Barrier Reef research

now we could have some real fun here if you persist in your bullshyte... there's no shortage of quotes from the guy to clearly show his true positions/agenda/motives. Please proceed Governor, please proceed!
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #507 on: May 16, 2019, 10:04:19 am »
I don't think it demeans all scientists when you say 'scientists are human and fallible'.  They WILL insult, and be petty like anyone else.... Waldo.

wow! How insightful of you - who knew scientists are humans! Of course, what you're really doing is, as you've done several times on "the other board", get suckered right into the TimG play. Are you at all surprised he's pulled out his tried&true - the Mann!  ;D You're the ultimate TimG enabler! What you did, what you're continuing to do, is take the circumstance of a couple/few scientists and a few hacked emails from a decade ago to allow TimG to use that once again to ply his false/fake narrative; one that purposely intends to denigrate ALL world-wide scientists by collectively impugning their integrity, honesty and honor... to ply his false/fake narrative that prevailing science (what he's just referred to as, "the glorious consensus") is simply a, as he's recently called it, "a popularity contest"!
Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #508 on: May 16, 2019, 10:16:29 am »
I see no difference between a moron that screams "denier" whenever someone questions some aspect of climate policy and a moron that claims that AGW is a UN plot. These people exist on all sides. Why do they have to prevent us from having a more nuanced discussion of what we know and what we do not?

you should just accept your denier label and wear it, "loud & proud"! In your case, your described "questioning some aspect", is you questioning a key/fundamental aspect - yes? You deny that mankind (that anthropogenic sourced CO2) is the principal causal tie to the relatively recent global warming/climate change (GW/CC). When repeatedly given the opportunity to provide your interpreted/understood alternative principal causal tie - you refuse to do so!

there is no, as you suggest, "nuance" in your false/fake narrative... in your agenda-driven attacks on scientists and prevailing (consensus) science. Hey, if you're all about nuance, step-up and provide your alternative principal causal tie to GW/CC - your alternative to anthropogenic sourced CO2. More nuance please!  ;D
Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #509 on: May 16, 2019, 11:11:31 am »
hey meester chilipeppers... less DUMB tagging, more posting! Signed - the "community"
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List