Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
dickymint said:
hairykrishna said:
deeps said:
This is an interesting paper
That's an interesting paper? It's total nonsense. You need better quality control. 
https://scholarlyoa.com/the-chinese-publisher-scir...
It is essentially a vanity press.
Not really the point though - a quick skim is enough for anyone who knows anything about the subject to deduce it's nonsense. If you don't know enough to know that paper's b
ks you shouldn't be trawling for papers to support your point of view, you should be learning enough about the basics to not look like an idiot.
Not really the point though - a quick skim is enough for anyone who knows anything about the subject to deduce it's nonsense. If you don't know enough to know that paper's b
ks you shouldn't be trawling for papers to support your point of view, you should be learning enough about the basics to not look like an idiot.hairykrishna said:
It is essentially a vanity press.
Not really the point though - a quick skim is enough for anyone who knows anything about the subject to deduce it's nonsense. If you don't know enough to know that paper's bks you shouldn't be trawling for papers to support your point of view, you should be learning enough about the basics to not look like an idiot.
I knew exactly where it came from - it was a jibe for the “faithful” to pick up on. You know the ones that think peer review is gospel.Not really the point though - a quick skim is enough for anyone who knows anything about the subject to deduce it's nonsense. If you don't know enough to know that paper's b
ks you shouldn't be trawling for papers to support your point of view, you should be learning enough about the basics to not look like an idiot.hairykrishna said:
It is essentially a vanity press.
Not really the point though - a quick skim is enough for anyone who knows anything about the subject to deduce it's nonsense. If you don't know enough to know that paper's bks you shouldn't be trawling for papers to support your point of view, you should be learning enough about the basics to not look like an idiot.
The concept of publishing papers has always had that element of vanity about it.Not really the point though - a quick skim is enough for anyone who knows anything about the subject to deduce it's nonsense. If you don't know enough to know that paper's b
ks you shouldn't be trawling for papers to support your point of view, you should be learning enough about the basics to not look like an idiot.Since the 70s, or thereabouts, development in university funding (notably in the UK model but more or less the same worldwide) have resulted in the University managements identifying a need to publish papers to attain status, attract students and thus attract funding.
Combined with increasing specialism in Science the pool of subject experienced peers for reviewing can be very small. The last thing a reviewer would want, even if they had opposing opinions about conclusions, is an open wound of criticism remembered when their next quota fulfilling paper came up for review and the small pool of possible reviewers had to be faced.
hairykrishna said:
It is essentially a vanity press.
Not really the point though - a quick skim is enough for anyone who knows anything about the subject to deduce it's nonsense. If you don't know enough to know that paper's bks you shouldn't be trawling for papers to support your point of view, you should be learning enough about the basics to not look like an idiot.
899 dollars worth of vanity in this case by the looks (but word is they'll offer you a discount if you make a fuss, which is worth knowing)Not really the point though - a quick skim is enough for anyone who knows anything about the subject to deduce it's nonsense. If you don't know enough to know that paper's b
ks you shouldn't be trawling for papers to support your point of view, you should be learning enough about the basics to not look like an idiot.If we were REALLY serious that the problem (if one exists) is man-made we'd stop all plane flights and car travel. Is it really a problem? The number of years records being used for data, showing the increasing temp 'since records began' are such a small period of time in the Earth's history it's laughable to use them as the measure that we're all doomed.
Fastpedeller said:
If we were REALLY serious that the problem (if one exists) is man-made we'd stop all plane flights and car travel. Is it really a problem? The number of years records being used for data, showing the increasing temp 'since records began' are such a small period of time in the Earth's history it's laughable to use them as the measure that we're all doomed.
It certainly is. On top of the short timescale, a significant proportion of the so-called 'recent' rise in temperature is due to adjustments made to the data i.e. it's not in the data until added, below, courtesy of NOAA.Note that the chart below is adjustments to temperature, not the temperature measurements. The rise shown is adjustments. NOAA has removed this image from its website but it can still be seen using the Internet Archive (Wayback Machine).
By way of example, this (below) is how USA temperature data for almost 100 years was described before climate became a politicised religion. Note the part which says "no significant change". Since the date of the article all we've had involves three natural El Nino warming events, and The Pause.
The data for e.g. New Zealand are also flat for ~100 years, no significant change, but adjustments are made which introduce warming.
Australia has used its own 'method' whereby record cold temperatures are automatically deleted.
This is the Oz cold temperatures deletion affair, and below it, hot days being altered (guess which way).
Few politicians get to know about this sort of behaviour, though in the hot days alterations it was a politician who noticed (unusually, possibly uniquely). Because the politician wasn't/isn't a lefty, this is somehow relevant, more than the tampering.
ORIGINAL
ALTERED
Few politicians get to know about this sort of behaviour, though in the hot days alterations it was a politician who noticed (unusually, possibly uniquely). Because the politician wasn't/isn't a lefty, this is somehow relevant, more than the tampering.
ORIGINAL
ALTERED
Murph7355 said:
durbster said:
Which means you believe the anthropogenic impact on the climate could be far larger than the science and evidence suggests.
I don't recall you ever making that case though. Only the opposite. Why is that?
Does that angle need any more pushing than it already gets across most media outlets?I don't recall you ever making that case though. Only the opposite. Why is that?
Balance is the key. You don't seem to be too balanced in accepting the other direction *could* be the case, no? If so, why not?
The supposed counter arguments don't justify serious debate. I mean, what is there? The same claims and graphs that have been posted over and over for the last 20 years despite their ever-decreasing relevance and credibility.
What else?
- barmy conspiracy theories (see turbobloke's posts above);
- the relentless misleading, misrepresenting and misquoting;
- links to articles written by the same eight people regardless whether they're about stratospheric satellite measurements or Australian bushfires;
- and of course the comical revelations presented on, er, YouTube videos by non-scientists.
Whatever this debate is about, it's absolutely not about objectivity or rational thinking. The evidence is overwhelming to the point where we can see even the most ardent deniers carefully re-positioning.
Murph7355 said:
If the whole debate were far less emotive, absolute and nihilistic, we'd achieve better, more effective lasting results IMO. But such is the human condition. Nature's found a great leveller as it always does.
This is about ideology, and tribal thinking. It's about the curious human trait that we will cling to what are, objectively speaking, totally irrational views if it means we can stay in the gang.LongQ said:
Not just any profit.
This will be a legally enforced "at any cost" profit opportunity reinforced by a the legal destruction of previously existing profit opportunities - often in a time frame accompanied by perpetual rule changes that eliminate even the possibility of a realistic transformation from one type of business to another by many of the existing business operations.
Thus it costs the "investors" and that cost, ultimately, trickles down to losses throughout the economic pyramid.
Things could become very interesting in a political sense at some point soon.
Given no real recovery of "the financial system" since 2008 it will be interesting to see whether the great and the good can cobble the system together sufficiently for it to struggle along for another decade.
Out of curiosity, I just dug up the very first pages of this thread from nearly ten years ago and you were full of this kind of fear about what these mysterious global powers would do to us all back then too, and what a catastrophe it would all be by 2020.This will be a legally enforced "at any cost" profit opportunity reinforced by a the legal destruction of previously existing profit opportunities - often in a time frame accompanied by perpetual rule changes that eliminate even the possibility of a realistic transformation from one type of business to another by many of the existing business operations.
Thus it costs the "investors" and that cost, ultimately, trickles down to losses throughout the economic pyramid.
Things could become very interesting in a political sense at some point soon.
Given no real recovery of "the financial system" since 2008 it will be interesting to see whether the great and the good can cobble the system together sufficiently for it to struggle along for another decade.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Well, we're here now so you can relax. Things are fine. The transition away from fossil fuels hasn't destroyed the world or our economy.
You can take comfort in the fact that, if nothing else, these global puppet masters of yours are incredibly slow at getting things done!
...
Oh, and look for the cameo from turbobloke citing a typically highly qualified source: that right-wing YouTube guy who did the Brain Force pill adverts on InfoWars. At least the quality of sources has been consistent.
durbster said:
Whatever this debate is about, it's absolutely not about objectivity or rational thinking. The evidence is overwhelming to the point where we can see even the most ardent deniers carefully re-positioning. This is about ideology, and tribal thinking. It's about the curious human trait that we will cling to what are, objectively speaking, totally irrational views if it means we can stay in the gang.
The thing is though, the evidence is not overwhelming. For starters, that 97% myth was debunked. There's just as much evidence out there from scientists stating the other side.A44RON said:
durbster said:
Whatever this debate is about, it's absolutely not about objectivity or rational thinking. The evidence is overwhelming to the point where we can see even the most ardent deniers carefully re-positioning. This is about ideology, and tribal thinking. It's about the curious human trait that we will cling to what are, objectively speaking, totally irrational views if it means we can stay in the gang.
The thing is though, the evidence is not overwhelming. For starters, that 97% myth was debunked. There's an objective way of proving it too. Simply look for these thousands of scientists studying climate related fields that dispute AGW. If there are tens of thousands of scientists out there with research that disproves AGW, where are they? Where are they working? Where's their research? Where's their Twitter account?
But the 97% figure is only to illustrate to the public how accepted the science is, it's not really useful for anything beyond that.
You won't find them because they don't exist beyond a handful of people linked to the propaganda machine. So then the story goes that these people exist, they're just too frightened to say anything. And the evidence for that amusing claim is non-existent.
A44RON said:
There's just as much evidence out there from scientists stating the other side.
There really isn't any evidence that disproves AGW, let alone "just as much".Edited by durbster on Friday 24th January 07:27
durbster said:
A44RON said:
durbster said:
Whatever this debate is about, it's absolutely not about objectivity or rational thinking. The evidence is overwhelming to the point where we can see even the most ardent deniers carefully re-positioning. This is about ideology, and tribal thinking. It's about the curious human trait that we will cling to what are, objectively speaking, totally irrational views if it means we can stay in the gang.
The thing is though, the evidence is not overwhelming. For starters, that 97% myth was debunked. As to the 97% myth, clinging to that is sheer desperation. Science doesn't operate via consensus whether real or imaginary. Studies of studies would be better if the original studies were ok. Empirical data is the only evidence that matters, vested interest opinions are ten a penny even if they were measured reasonably. Without credible data the only thing left is opinion which is why it's clung to so firmly, particularly as climate is now about politics and politics operates using consensus as something important, so it's being made important by others.
One claimed 97% result was derived from published papers. This survey used a definition that mankind had caused most post-1950 warming. On this definition the true consensus among published scientific papers was demonstrated to be only 0.3% not 97% as only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers examined explicitly concluded that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950.
A second survey (97% result) came from 10,256 questionnaires with only 3,146 respondents, and those responses were then sifted down to a cherry pick of 75 out of 77 “expert” replies from ’active climate researchers’ chosen by the survey people. Talk about cherry picking. What's 75 out of 3,146 as a percentage?
Staying with climate politics, there was some good news in a statement from Davos which resonates with what's happening and not happening elsewhere as climate extremists with another agenda push for marxism as 'the answer'.
"We will never let radical socialists destroy our economy"
While on the topic of socialists wearing climate cloaks, ex-Harvard physicist Dr Lubos Motl has provided some feedback on the European Green Deal proposals. He has direct experience of the delights of communism and writes accordingly.
https://motls.blogspot.com/2020/01/european-green-...
He's rather scathing about MEPs 'thinking' about climate from the wrong end of their body while using organisations and gospel tracts as a replacement for credible empirical data i.e. evidence. It's almost as though politicians are clinging to the consensus myth for some reason.
https://motls.blogspot.com/2020/01/european-green-...
He's rather scathing about MEPs 'thinking' about climate from the wrong end of their body while using organisations and gospel tracts as a replacement for credible empirical data i.e. evidence. It's almost as though politicians are clinging to the consensus myth for some reason.
chrispmartha said:
TB quoting Trump now, a new low?
Shooting the messenger(s) is an ad hominem logial fallacy. You ought to know by now!In the climate politics thread, was a politician mentioned in the context of climate and politics? Heavens above.
In any case it's not a new record low until the WMO says so, and Australia is deleting record lows so the non-consensus won't be 100% (maybe 97%).
Having looked for some climate politics in the above post and having found none, here's some from me. It's over at the climate politics blog Climate Depot and covers 'protecting children from climate fraud' with failed agw predictions to go.
www.climatedepot.com/2020/01/23/watch-protecting-c...
It mentions the 12-year claim which socialist politician Ocasio-Cortez says will only be believed by those with the intelligence of a sea sponge, and which (together with other time limited hysteria) hotshot NASA GISS climate modeller Dr Gavin Schmidt says is "bulls
t".Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff