Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Snake_Baker]

Science and the Public Part 3: A Scientific Consensus is Based on Evidence, not Peer Pressure and Adherence to Dogma

In this post, I am going to debunk an argument that is very commonly used by the anti-science movement. Namely, the argument that scientists merely go along with the accepted dogma of their field a…

thelogicofscience.com

Here's the only "philosophy" that matters.

 

[Mofra]

Here's the only "philosophy" that matters.

View attachment 809223

It's a good chart, especially in light of a recent study that attempted to replicate the results of peer reviewed papers that challenge the notion of human-impacted climate change. That study found flaws in all of them and was unable to replicate the results.

 

[Snake_Baker]

It's a good chart, especially in light of a recent study that attempted to replicate the results of peer reviewed papers that challenge the notion of human-impacted climate change. That study found flaws in all of them and was unable to replicate the results.

Your premise is wide enough to have an aircraft carrier steered through it sideways.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Alarmists please read.

"Climate change is an issue I care passionately about and have dedicated a significant portion of my life to addressing. I have been politically active on the issue for over 20 years and have researched and written about it for 17 years."

Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong

Climate change is real but it's not the end of the world. And increasingly extreme statements by activists undermine environmental progress, say climate scientists.

www.forbes.com

 

[Corpuscles]

Science and the Public Part 3: A Scientific Consensus is Based on Evidence, not Peer Pressure and Adherence to Dogma

In this post, I am going to debunk an argument that is very commonly used by the anti-science movement. Namely, the argument that scientists merely go along with the accepted dogma of their field a…

thelogicofscience.com

Mofra

I really had and do credit you with more intelligence than that!

Read the 3 points they do not relate to that comment at all. It was relating to the statistical analysis of numbers , as if that ( weight of numbers) proves anything, other than what we ALL already know. That being most full time specialist climatologists and especially those associated with IPCC are already convinced . Therefore their scientific articles will reflect that.

Also, regarding earlier post. You can dig up all this CC stuff , and are well and truly able to find negative articles on AFL just as well (likely much better ) than I. They exist but you need to set the parameters of what the exact qualification of negative is defined as being.

That excerpt is so obviously written by a extremist with touch of hysteria. It is useless!
"Ad homniem" ..FFS!!!!!! Might be somewhat accurate , but the language of the sooky alarmist.

 

[Mofra]

Alarmists please read.

"Climate change is an issue I care passionately about and have dedicated a significant portion of my life to addressing. I have been politically active on the issue for over 20 years and have researched and written about it for 17 years."

Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong

Climate change is real but it's not the end of the world. And increasingly extreme statements by activists undermine environmental progress, say climate scientists.

www.forbes.com

Good article.
I'm glad you now agree with the IPCC, which is the basis for much of it

 

[mcnulty]

Good article.
I'm glad you now agree with the IPCC, which is the basis for much of it

Bizarre, isn’t it? Despite having it actually reproduced in summary on this thread, people still seem to have no idea what the IPCC is saying, despite piling onto them.

 

[Grin]

YOU are the true generic thinker.

One of the sheeple so to speak.

 

[Snake_Baker]

One of the sheeple so to speak.

Well, you're clearly not utilising much in the way of "science" methodology.

 

[Mofra]

Mofra

I really had and do credit you with more intelligence than that!

Read the 3 points they do not relate to that comment at all. It was relating to the statistical analysis of numbers , as if that ( weight of numbers) proves anything, other than what we ALL already know. That being most full time specialist climatologists and especially those associated with IPCC are already convinced . Therefore their scientific articles will reflect that.

Also, regarding earlier post. You can dig up all this CC stuff , and are well and truly able to find negative articles on AFL just as well (likely much better ) than I. They exist but you need to set the parameters of what the exact qualification of negative is defined as being.

That excerpt is so obviously written by a extremist with touch of hysteria. It is useless!
"Ad homniem" ..FFS!!!!!! Might be somewhat accurate , but the language of the sooky alarmist.

Starting a post with an ad hominem itself is never a great start, but the premise of "These arguments attack the scientists, rather than their results (ad hominem)" as stated in the article does in fact seem prescient.

It does seem an interesting way of looking at the statistics though "That being most full time specialist climatologists and especially those associated with IPCC are already convinced". Considering the logical conclusion of that position, would you be more convinced if there was less consensus? I do lend credence to the sheer weight of studies that show there is some measure of human-impact on the global climate.

That's not an argument that the models are perfect or that every prediction is going to be correct, or some sort of nod to every apocalyptic scenario that has been posited. It's an acknowledgement that, on the balance of probability, the thousands of peers reviewed articles are correct in addition to observable data I ave posted earlier in this thread (e.g. the reduction in land ice from antarctica, the shrinking arctic cap).

I respect the scientific community. I am proudly progressive and grateful for the marvelous quality of life we enjoy which is primarily on the back of centuries of scientific advancement. e.g. Recently 'golden rice' with a far higher nutritional content that regular rice is starting to gain traction among the world's poorest nations which will provide a huge boost to the nutritional profile of the diets of the world's poor. I am typing this over a medium that allows me to access the thoughts and opinions of millions of people in an instant. I am immunised against a range of diseases that would have drastically shortened the lifespan or quality of life of millions of people just a few generations ago. Life's wonderful.

 

[Snake_Baker]

“Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.” ― Mark Twain

 

[Ron The Bear]

Good article.
I'm glad you now agree with the IPCC, which is the basis for much of it

It was posted to illustrate that it's not an all-or-nothing scenario. Schellenberger's is a Lomborg-type position - believes the IPCC but insists efforts should be directed toward adapting to climate change until technological advances make it practical to drastically reduce emissions. Yet Lomborg is regarded as a heretic by climate activists.

In saying that, I'm not sure Schellenberger is representing the holistic IPCC narrative all that accurately, which is clearly on the extreme/alarmist side.

We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN

Here is his follow-up.

Why Climate Alarmism Hurts Us All

There is no scientific basis for the claim that climate change will be apocalyptic, but there is growing evidence that climate alarmism is contributing to rising anxiety and depression among teenagers.

www.forbes.com

 

[Mofra]

It was posted to illustrate that it's not an all-or-nothing scenario. Schellenberger's is a Lomborg-type position - believes the IPCC but insists efforts should be directed toward adapting to climate change until technological advances make it practical to drastically reduce emissions. Yet Lomborg is regarded as a heretic by climate activists.

It's a sensible position.

You haven't made the mistake of assuming anyone that wants action of climate change is some sort of doomsday alarmist? There are strong economic considerations for acting sooner as well.

 

[madmug]

Actually I doubt you’d find too many journalists who haven’t been critical of aspects of the game over the journey, and of the AFL heirachy.

Gee that’s a stupid analogy.

Considering the media gravy train the AFL provide for the media sycophants, why would they be critical?

Its relevance to climate?, NONE.

 

[Ron The Bear]

You haven't made the mistake of assuming anyone that wants action of climate change is some sort of doomsday alarmist?

They exist on a spectrum, as with most things. I would say the vast majority we're hearing from sit somewhere to the left of Schellenberger.

 

[Clems Knee]

Here's the only "philosophy" that matters.

View attachment 809223

Here is the method that Snake uses:

 

[Snake_Baker]

Here is the method that Snake uses:
View attachment 809250

...............

 

[Corpuscles]

Starting a post with an ad hominem itself is never a great start, but the premise of "These arguments attack the scientists, rather than their results (ad hominem)" as stated in the article does in fact seem prescient.

It does seem an interesting way of looking at the statistics though "That being most full time specialist climatologists and especially those associated with IPCC are already convinced". Considering the logical conclusion of that position, would you be more convinced if there was less consensus? I do lend credence to the sheer weight of studies that show there is some measure of human-impact on the global climate.

That's not an argument that the models are perfect or that every prediction is going to be correct, or some sort of nod to every apocalyptic scenario that has been posited. It's an acknowledgement that, on the balance of probability, the thousands of peers reviewed articles are correct in addition to observable data I ave posted earlier in this thread (e.g. the reduction in land ice from antarctica, the shrinking arctic cap).

I respect the scientific community. I am proudly progressive and grateful for the marvelous quality of life we enjoy which is primarily on the back of centuries of scientific advancement. e.g. Recently 'golden rice' with a far higher nutritional content that regular rice is starting to gain traction among the world's poorest nations which will provide a huge boost to the nutritional profile of the diets of the world's poor. I am typing this over a medium that allows me to access the thoughts and opinions of millions of people in an instant. I am immunised against a range of diseases that would have drastically shortened the lifespan or quality of life of millions of people just a few generations ago. Life's wonderful.

" I do lend credence to the sheer weight of studies that show there is some measure of human-impact on the global climate."

I could be wrong but even though perhaps many think there are likely considerable other factors involved in climate changing, even in the span of one human lifetime, that most would concede that the pollution and destruction of the natural balance of the environment, including Co2 emissions and massive exponential population growth in recent decades, has and will effect the climate.

"I respect the scientific community. I am proudly progressive and grateful for the marvelous quality of life we enjoy which is primarily on the back of centuries of scientific advancement."

Exactly.

Previously, you seemed quite annoyed that I suggested that you abandon the airline industry.
The radicals which many support and act like here, call for a shut down or a protest avoidance (Greta etc)
I actually think if anyone was serious about CC they would avoid non essential air travel !
But we know it is all BS!
It is for "other people" to make sacrifices, or "the government", or "big business"

Most of the most solid CC advocates here , likely have a dish washer, a tumble drier, take holiday trips in jets, want to see night time AFL games under lights, drive car for leisure purposes, even if they could walk or otherwise. etc etc
They would scream blue murder, if the hospital said we haven't got a life support machine for you it will pollute the environment too much with fossil fuel generated electricity

They JUST bleat about it

BUT NO SACRIFICE - they are hooked into the deceit that someone else ought fix it.
Instead of a calm what can be realistically be done, they want to be an advocate and just virtue signal in their confused stress caused by the fact that
a. The scientists don't really know
b. Cannot accurately predict weather /climate changes. ( PROVEN !)
c Media beat it up for their fossil fuel generated profits (all of them hypocrites too)
d. They mistakenly believe that China and India etc are going to be shamed into it, by their own little hypocritical selves!

The reality is , none of the extremist alarmist rubbish helps at all!
IT DETRACTS from people acting on it!

AND The science is not settled to the extent and projection of human impact.
Cheers

 

[Fadge]

Far to stupid for even a Luddite dribbler like you. Which is why I was a little surprised.

There is a fair degree of irony when a poster is calling another poster stupid, yet they fall short when simple homonyms are required...

 

[Snake_Baker]

Can someone tell ScoMo to STOP praying!!!

 

[Snake_Baker]

Apparently this qualifies as a "heatwave" these days.......in Brisbane.................and in late January.

.
South East Queensland heatwave set to cause 'quite a sweaty few days'

"In Brisbane, the temperature will soar into the mid-30s until Friday, with overnight temperatures not expected to drop below 25C. "

Overnight temperatures won't drop below 25C in some parts as Queensland heatwave brings hot, humid nights

After several days of torrential rain and storms in some areas, South East Queensland is staring down the barrel of "extreme conditions" that will raise temperatures up to five degrees above average over the next few days, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Mofra]

Interesting: the bottom of this article includes NASA Methodology and how it feeds into global projects

What's Really Warming the World?

What's Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise

www.bloomberg.com

 

[mcnulty]

There is a fair degree of irony when a poster is calling another poster stupid, yet they fall short when simple homonyms are required...

Looks like you don’t know what irony means, do you Chester? Which isn’t ironic by the way, though it is stupid.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Interesting: the bottom of this article includes NASA Methodology and how it feeds into global projects

What's Really Warming the World?

What's Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise

www.bloomberg.com

It is interesting.

Which depiction makes the most consistent correlation?

CO2:



NOTE: The margins for error from 1969 onwards.


All factors:



Mofra, can you see what happens when a couple of journalists get their hands on scientific data?

Bullshit arises.

 

[Corpuscles]

Righto before I give this subject a break (LOL! if I can)

Here is an article
It supports Anthropomorphic Climate Change!

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

It is a dicussion about:

Using the data that were available at the time (through 2012), the last climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that there had been no statistically significant increase in global surface temperature from 1998-2012.

What none? , whilst Co2 rose dramatically?


No can't have that, so immediately after:

According to a new NOAA analysis, the warming trend during that period was somewhat smaller than the longer-term (1951-2012) trend, but it wasn’t zero. And with the latest data calibrations and the most recent two years of global temperatures added to the series—including record-warm 2014—the warming experienced since 1998 is on par with the rate observed in the second half of the 20th century.

Before bright vegan tells me, I realise that this might be just for North America also that they are ONLY talking surface temperature!

Do all the expert know why the hiatus? NO lots of guesses. But interesting that the new "data calibrations" created a need to make up for the short fall.

It goes on to discuss ocean temperature change. They even have LESS idea of what is happening there.
LOTS OF GUESSES and they do not have the data nor the explanation.

SO NO NEED TO PANIC! Do what is economically feasible.
!

Editor's Note: Since this article was written, researchers have continued to try to quantify where exactly the deep ocean heat has gone and how it got there. The theory remains that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is the main mode of variability regulating temperature in the Pacific Ocean, contributing to the global warming hiatus and driving other climate trends elsewhere. But in the meantime, recent studies have investigated the cause of recent warming trends in the Atlantic and Southern Oceans. Some questions remain for scientists, including: What physical mechanisms drive variability in the ocean basins? How deep is Earth’s accumulating heat penetrating the depths of the ocean?

The Pacific ocean takes up nearly half the globe ( get a model of one and look)

How many thermometers and readings are they taking in the Pacific? Then "calibrating" in a fudged guesses!?

Yes it is getting warmer!
Since when did they have several million or billion temp gauges in the Pacific at all depths ?
NEVER certainly not in 1990 or before.

IT is a politically motivated hoax !

BUT WE SHOULD CARE FOR THE PLANET AND NOT BE SO FUGGING GREEDY AND SELF OBSESSED!

Just put investment into developing cleaner better energy sources, as and when they can be afforded without dramatic hardship, and those who want more THEN YOU PROVE YOUR OWN DAILY LIFETIME SACRIFICE!

Anyone?