Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 28638 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #600 on: May 23, 2019, 12:32:36 am »
Stirring the pot...

While TimG's point of 'group think' being a problem isn't the primary issue facing us, with Climate Change, I don't think he's off the mark in describing it as a 'general' problem with organizations.  Of course, Waldo will pillory me because I agree with some minor premise and therefore 'enable' TimG's argument (I don't) I find it interesting that sometimes Climate Change is given too much leeway.

stir harder! Such a hard choice for you, hey! If you want to accept TimG's false premise that all legitimate scientists analysis/study/results are subject to bias & influence due to "groupthink", why do you give fake-skeptics, deniers, TimG's blog "scientists", etc., a free pass in terms of groupthink. Is it much easier for you to be theEnabler; do you never tire playing devil's advocate?
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #601 on: May 23, 2019, 12:45:38 am »
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/sea-level-rise-climate-change-1.5144739

^ This is one study that made the front page of the CBC page.  There was also a study in the past year or two saying that climate change from ice melt could be lower than thought but that didn't get front page on the CBC.

Everything is political.  Everyone is political.

sorry, nice try. The CBC News webpage is made up of ever rotating articles from assorted sub-section areas... in your case example, the article homes within the technology sub-section. The rotation of articles presumes upon 'hits... views' - more popular articles last longer in the rotation and ultimately can only be found within their respective sub-section areas. But hey, if believing there's a political choice being made lets you pontificate, good on ya!

(notwithstanding it's a tad difficult to gauge the presumed legitimacy of your imaginative claim when you can't even provide the name/link of the other article you presume to imply didn't have the political weight to make the main page).
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #602 on: May 23, 2019, 12:52:48 am »
In any case, the issue is irrelevant to the question of what to do since I agree that we know enough to justify some policy response to increasing CO2 emissions. .... the appropriate policy response is a question of economics (what can we afford?), technology (what can we do given what we can afford?) and values (what priorities do we have?).

which is you giving your token nothingness to the irrefutable science of CO2 - you can't deny that, so you continue to throw out platitudes buried under caveats that allow you to continue to play out your perpetual, "delay, do nothing"... uhhh... policy response!  ;D
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #603 on: May 23, 2019, 12:54:20 am »
Most claims in climate science will never be validated.

which ones make your top/target list?
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Pinus or Vid or...?????

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #604 on: May 23, 2019, 01:03:51 am »
which is you giving your token nothingness to the irrefutable science of CO2 - you can't deny that, so you continue to throw out platitudes buried under caveats that allow you to continue to play out your perpetual, "delay, do nothing"... uhhh... policy response!  ;D

Country roads, take me home
To the place I belong
West Virginia, mountain mama
Take me home, country roads
Take me home, down country roads
Take me home, down country roads.




« Last Edit: May 23, 2019, 01:08:05 am by Vid »
If Omni, Impact, and the_squid ever had a love child, I would be him
Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #605 on: May 23, 2019, 01:14:17 am »
Over the last 20 years the best models climate scientists had failed to predict the amount of warming we actually had. Scientists that were not consumed by group think would have considered the possibility that climate models were wrong and needed to be fixed to match the real world.

are you categorically stating NO models have been able to predict recent warming? Are you implying modelers don't acknowledge limitations, constraints, uncertainties, etc.? ... are you stating/implying that world-wide modeling groups don't openly publish their intentions and progress towards model refinements?

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #606 on: May 23, 2019, 01:17:08 am »
Country roads, take me home
To the place I belong
West Virginia, mountain mama
Take me home, country roads
Take me home, down country roads
Take me home, down country roads.






Are you aware of what thread you are in?

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #607 on: May 23, 2019, 01:18:44 am »
geezaz, are you off the wagon... or just desperately seeking attention?  ;D

I suggest probably both.
Oh well fun eh!
Love Love x 1 View List

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #608 on: May 23, 2019, 05:25:48 am »
1. If you want to accept TimG's false premise that all legitimate scientists analysis/study/results are subject to bias & influence due to "groupthink",

2. why do you give fake-skeptics, deniers, TimG's blog "scientists", etc., a free pass in terms of groupthink. Is it much easier for you to be theEnabler;

3. do you never tire playing devil's advocate?

1. I think this is a feature of humanity not a 'bug'.  This is why we have peer review in the first place, to allow gadflies and contrarians to pick apart the consensus.

2. I do not.  But... their 'human' problems are elsewhere, ie. vanity, iconoclasticism, jealousy. 

3. Let's not get so arrogant that we utterly dismiss other points of view, erst we become what TimG says we are.  Also, if you think I'm the 'devil's advocate' that makes you God, or at least on his team.  Ahem.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #609 on: May 23, 2019, 05:30:02 am »
sorry, nice try. The CBC News webpage is made up of ever rotating articles from assorted sub-section areas... in your case example, the article homes within the technology sub-section. The rotation of articles presumes upon 'hits... views' - more popular articles last longer in the rotation and ultimately can only be found within their respective sub-section areas. But hey, if believing there's a political choice being made lets you pontificate, good on ya!

Well it showed up at the top when I hit CBC news' main page.  I will assume you are dead right that it's an algorithm that serves up the top story.  This means that somebody is willing to believe the story based on one study.  If it's not a CBC editor or web master then it's the audience.  Groupthink in any case.

Also - my point about the Alaska story stands.  It was about reduced methane release or somesuch and appeared exactly nowhere on the CBC or elsewhere.

Quote
(notwithstanding it's a tad difficult to gauge the presumed legitimacy of your imaginative claim when you can't even provide the name/link of the other article you presume to imply didn't have the political weight to make the main page).

Here's one that's more recent https://phys.org/news/2019-02-arctic-lakes-carbon.html

Seems legitimate and we're not hearing about it, although if you google you will find articles all over the place on both sides.   

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #610 on: May 23, 2019, 05:44:22 am »
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/permafrost-thawing-methane-1.4806284

CBC - showing one study again. 

In the quest to determine OBJECTIVE standards to truth-seeking can we agree that publishing a story based on ONE STUDY is a bad idea ?  The exception might be a Naomi Oreskes (sp?) type study-of-studies study.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #611 on: May 23, 2019, 07:36:45 am »
are you categorically stating NO models have been able to predict recent warming?

After recently acknowledging that climate change is a real problem and we hsve to pay attention to it, Tim now is also very upset that climate change scientists UNDERESTIMATED in predicting the amount of warming that we have now.

We know that, as it's the reason for the IPCC's recent emergency report.

Nice to see TimG making some progress beyond 1965.
I just have a feeling that TimG's real inner self comes out sometimes, cracks the facade of his propaganda-phile duties.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2019, 07:38:29 am by Granny »

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #612 on: May 23, 2019, 08:04:37 am »
In the quest to determine OBJECTIVE standards to truth-seeking can we agree that publishing a story based on ONE STUDY is a bad idea ?  The exception might be a Naomi Oreskes (sp?) type study-of-studies study.
Naomi Oreskes is the worst of the worst when it comes to academics with a bias that is so extreme that nothing she say can be taken seriously.



Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #613 on: May 23, 2019, 08:08:55 am »
After recently acknowledging that climate change is a real problem and we hsve to pay attention to it, Tim now is also very upset that climate change scientists UNDERESTIMATED in predicting the amount of warming that we have now.
ROTFL. No Granny, the climate models have consistently predicted much MORE warming that has actually occurred over the last 30 years. Now alarmists are constantly trying to explain this mismatch away by "fixing" the real world data but all that does is leave us with no useful data to use for real world comparisons.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2019, 08:29:37 am by TimG »

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #614 on: May 23, 2019, 09:51:17 am »
ROTFL. No Granny, the climate models have consistently predicted much MORE warming that has actually occurred over the last 30 years. Of course, alarmist propagandists believe in the "big lie" so they sometimes claim otherwise but it is complete nonsense. They also spend a lot of adjusting datasets to match their models instead of fixing their models which only means that we no longer have any useful data that can be uses as a real world comparison.
Ahh ... more propaganda-phile TimG nonsense ... but Tim ... real Tim ... also said  this:

...the question of what to do since I agree that we know enough to justify some policy response to increasing CO2 emissions. ..

What do we do Tim?
Tackle the biggest sources first, I'd say.
Canada has the highest emissions per capita in the world. But that's a total divided by the number of people, and individual people are not really a big  source of our emissions: industries are.

Past Canadian data on GHG emissions looked at different economic/industrial sectors, resulting in pitting sectors against each other.

I rather like this new report that, instead, looks at buildings/facilities across all sectors:
Emissions from the reporting facilities account for 41% of Canada's total GHG emissions

That's certainly a number worth addressing, for a fairly quick return on our efforts and money. It's accurately targeted at significant sources, doesn't pit sectors against each other, and I think we know quite a bit about reducing emissions of large facilities that just hasn't been implemented or prioritized for funding.

 So I support the Green Party's platform that does just that.
No doubt some funding for these infrastructure improvements may come from reduced or reallocated subsidies to fossil fuel production, also Green policy, so perhaps additional GHG reductions there too.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2019, 09:59:58 am by Granny »