Effect of human activity on climate change is insignificant

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

uwot
Posts: 4361
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Effect of human activity on climate change is insignificant

Post by uwot » Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:01 pm

Walker wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:39 pm
uwot wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:34 pm
Walker wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:16 pm
Ignorance on parade.

Effect of human activity on climate change is insignificant, and cannot be proven otherwise.
I'm guessing you're not a scientist of any stripe, so I gotta ask, what makes you so certain?
Because there is no proof.
Lemme get this straight: you are certain because there is no proof?
Walker wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:39 pm
I'm guessing you're a Chicken Little, and the proof is your unproven belief.
I have no idea what "Chicken Little" means. And what have I said that you think is an "unproven belief"?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

""how can you be so confident?"

Post by henry quirk » Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:17 pm

Belinda, no climate scientist, is equally confident: don't see you questionin' her.

#

"I don't see that the overwhelming majority of scientists who claim that co2 is a greenhouse gas have anything like as much to gain as the fossil fuel companies - oil, coal and gas- have to gain by denying it."

What they might 'gain' from denyin' human-caused climate change is loss of fundin' and the joy of bein' ostracized.

#

"Kinda makes me suspicious."

What I find suspicious: pieces and links (posted by me) that run contray to 'conventional wisdom' continualy ignored by intelligent folks, like Belinda, for example.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

veg, I'm regrettin' takin' you out of the penalty box...

Post by henry quirk » Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:22 pm

"They used to deny it was happening at all."

Not me: from the start I've said the climate changes. It has to: it's a global heat distribution system. All I say: man ain't drivin' the change.

Get it right or zip it.

Walker
Posts: 6738
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Corruption of Science

Post by Walker » Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:20 pm

May 24, 2014
The Corruption of Science
By Norman Rogers

Eisenhower in his farewell address warned that a “scientific-technological elite” dependent on government money would exert undue influence on government policy.

Now, as Eisenhower predicted, scientific advice is contaminated by political considerations aimed at protecting the interests of science and scientists.

Scientists will exaggerate the importance of their own work. However, there should be a line that is not crossed -- the line that separates self-promotion from corruption.

The corruption of science does not necessarily mean lying or faking data. Mostly it is a matter of exaggerating the danger, or importance, of some theory, or else remaining passive while others exaggerate.

A common corrupt path to scientific success is to discover and overpromote a new danger; perhaps something that causes cancer, hurts children, or poisons the environment. The scientists who discover and overpromote the new danger become heroes and get more grants and more money.

Take, for example, the government program to fight radon pollution. Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that comes from the decay of trace amounts of radioactive isotopes in the soil. In some areas people have “high” levels of radon. It is alleged that the radon seeping into houses causes lung cancer. The scientific evidence for the radon program is based on dubious theory not backed by good statistical evidence. But radon is a gift that keeps on giving, providing jobs and grants.

Acid rain (scary sounding) is caused by sulfur emissions from burning coal in electrical generating plants. In a 1984 editorial the New York Times said: “…the warning signs -- dead lakes, damaged crops, forests of stunted trees - presage a massive natural disaster.” Acid rain turned out to be a tempest in a teacup. The government program to ameliorate acid rain cost the economy billions and only has a target of reducing sulfur emissions by half. If acid rain is so dangerous, why does the government only cut it by half?

Some other science-based scare stories include: asbestos, DDT, lead, plutonium, nuclear power, the ozone hole, species extinction, vaccines causing autism,power lines causing cancer, fracking, second hand smoke, ocean acidification,global cooling and the biggest scare, global warming. Typically, there is a core of real science behind each scare and then the danger is blown up out of all proportion to the real danger.

There is a man who walks up and down Michigan Avenue in Chicago with sandwich boards and a megaphone. He believes that Vice President Biden is actually an impostor planted by the Russian secret services. He is completely sincere and coherent. Unlike the promoters of global warming, his beliefs are not supported by official policy and government money.

It should not be a defense for scientific corruption that the scientist was innocently in error. A stricter standard of accountability is necessary to discourage the corruption that is currently poisoning science. Human nature being what it is, the scientists engaging in corrupt behavior always believe they are engaged in a noble crusade. If there is a price to pay for abusing the trust placed in science, scientists will act more prudently.

The intellectual foundation for global warming is computer smoke and mirrors. The predictions of doom rely on computer models of the Earth’s climate. The only reason to believe these complicated models is the professional judgment of the very climate scientists whose jobs and reputations depend on the believability of those computer models. It’s a fox guarding the hen house situation.

Because global warming actually stopped about 15 years ago, the global warming establishment stopped talking about “global warming” and started talking about “climate change” and “extreme weather.” The scientific basis for the theory that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause extreme weather is very thin. From a propaganda point of view it is great to be able to blame every flood, draught, hurricane, and forest fire on extreme weather caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Since the most recent extreme weather is most vivid in memory, to the man in the street the idea that the weather is getting worse seems plausible. But the weather is not getting worse.

Peer review and open discussion is supposed to keep scientific sin in check. However, if the scientific journals are controlled by a clique, and if hellfire rains down on dissenters, then peer review fails and open discussion takes place only in secret. This was vividly illustrated when Roy Spencer, a highly original and competent climate scientist attempted to make an end run around the establishment journals. He submitted an exceptionally important paper to an obscure Swiss journal, Remote Sensing. The paper was duly peer reviewed and published. Most probably the editor had no idea that he was playing with fire, that he was publishing blasphemy. Hellfire rained down on the editor. He wasforced to resign for daring to publish a paper critical of global warming doctrine. Even if the paper were in error, that is not grounds for firing the editor. Erroneous papers are published all the time. Mistakes are expected as science progresses.

Richard Lindzen, an MIT scientist with a record of great accomplishment, complains that when he publishes a paper critical of the climate establishment, other papers refuting his work are already written and he is refused the opportunity to defend his work.

Critics of global warming doctrine, like the Canadian climate scientist Tim Ball, have been subjected to expensive legal attacks. Even if the lawsuits are groundless, people will be afraid to speak up for fear of an expensive trip through the courts. Judges and juries are quite incapable of understanding the scientific issues, so the outcome of the suits may depend on who can parade the most convincing scientific experts. That would be the pro global warming clique that controls the journals and even prescribes policy at the White House. Tim Ball has written a book: The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.

The global warming scare story has been heavily attacked on the Internet both by professional scientists and by amateur scientists. The amateurs range from highly qualified critics such as Steve McIntyre or Anthony Watts to borderline cases that often put forth irrelevant or wrong arguments. Global warming skeptics are shut out of most media outlets. The availability of Internet outlets has served an essential role in exposing the weaknesses in the global warmers’ arguments.

Possibly, if the Internet had existed in the 1970s and 1980s many of the science scares during those years could have been defeated or minimized. Keep in mind that scares such as asbestos, acid rain, DDT, and global warming have inflicted billions or trillions of dollars of economic damage. The ban on DDT has beenrescinded by the World Health Organization but not by the U.S. government. Government agencies as a rule never admit to making mistakes. For that reason outdated regulations and policies are nearly immortal. The ban on DDT was directly responsible for the deaths of millions of children from malaria.

When scientists, or their organizations, offer supposedly objective advice that will greatly influence their own interests, we must be highly suspicious of that advice and seek second and third opinions. Dissenters within a discipline should be taken seriously and not treated as outliers who can be ignored. Sometimes the dissenters are really whistle blowers who are willing to risk their careers.

Getting a second opinion may be difficult because it may be hard for persons outside of the discipline’s establishment to understand the issues. Retired scientists or persons trained in the discipline but pursuing different careers might be good candidates to offer objective advice. Persons in related disciplines are also good candidates. For example, many of the better-informed critics of global warming are physicists, economists, or engineers. These are fields used to dealing with computer models, statistics, and measurement.

There may be a place for an organization that serves to analyze and critique the advice of scientists and scientific organizations. Such an organization might assume a role similar to that of the inspectors general in the federal government or the California Legislative Analyst, a branch of the California legislature that analyzes important government issues in an objective manner. The National Academies of Science pretend to serve this role, but their advice is shockingly biased. They are really a cheerleader and lobbyist for the special interests of the science establishment. An example of the work of the National Academies is the report "A National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling". This lengthy report was written mostly by scientists making a career of climate modeling. It presents a rosy view of climate models and urges continuation and expansion of the programs -- i.e. more money. The real story is that billions have been tossed down the climate modeling rathole to finance expensive and redundant models of dubious value. The National Academies tell us that a committee of scientists will provide objective advice about the worth of their personal science empires. Unfortunately the National Academies have been getting away with this type of fraud for a long time.

The gullibility of the media results in a constant flow of science scare stories. Because the media organizations are scientifically illiterate they cannot distinguish real science from junk science. A bit of journalistic skepticism concerning science based scares would be extremely helpful.

Walker
Posts: 6738
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Corruption of Science

Post by Walker » Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:39 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:01 pm
Walker wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:39 pm
uwot wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:34 pm

I'm guessing you're not a scientist of any stripe, so I gotta ask, what makes you so certain?
Because there is no proof.
Lemme get this straight: you are certain because there is no proof?
Walker wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:39 pm
I'm guessing you're a Chicken Little, and the proof is your unproven belief.
I have no idea what "Chicken Little" means. And what have I said that you think is an "unproven belief"?
“In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”
- Richard Feynman

Chicken Little Climate Alarmists do not, and cannot, follow this process. When the doom predictions do not come true, they simply move the deadline further into the future.

What a shameful corruption of science. If you call yourself a scientist and are a Climate Change Alarmist, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Walker
Posts: 6738
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: veg, I'm regrettin' takin' you out of the penalty box...

Post by Walker » Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:44 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:22 pm
"They used to deny it was happening at all."

Not me: from the start I've said the climate changes. It has to: it's a global heat distribution system. All I say: man ain't drivin' the change.

Get it right or zip it.
Not anyone.

It's her way of plugging her fingers in her ears and singing, "Lalalalalala."

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8053
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: veg, I'm regrettin' takin' you out of the penalty box...

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:02 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:22 pm
"They used to deny it was happening at all."

Not me: from the start I've said the climate changes. It has to: it's a global heat distribution system. All I say: man ain't drivin' the change.

Get it right or zip it.
The global-warming deniers who have power and A LOT of money at stake. Do you think I was talking about the brain-washed, gullible little imbeciles they manipulate? All they do is say what they are told to say and hear what they want to hear.
Get educated or zip it. Arrogant little prik.

Neither you nor Walker have a clue about anything. Your 'opinion' is based solely on your own pockets and comfortable little lives. Stupid, short-sighted, self-centred wastes-of-resources-and-space.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"Get educated or zip it. Arrogant little prik."

Post by henry quirk » Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:45 pm

Yeah, life is too short to be insulted by a stranger: stop now or back to the penalty box you go.

#

"Neither you nor Walker have a clue about anything."

Walker and me and a score of others simply won't be led by the nose by climate alarmists and the folks who direct the alarmists.

#

"Your 'opinion' is based solely on your own pockets and comfortable little lives."

My opinion is based on a review of what climate alarmists claim is conclusive, but isn't.

I note: you haven't commented on the piece I posted multiple times in-thread (and I'm supposed to be the denier).

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8053
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: "Get educated or zip it. Arrogant little prik."

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:01 am

henry quirk wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:45 pm
Yeah, life is too short to be insulted by a stranger: stop now or back to the penalty box you go.

#

"Neither you nor Walker have a clue about anything."

Walker and me and a score of others simply won't be led by the nose by climate alarmists and the folks who direct the alarmists.

#

"Your 'opinion' is based solely on your own pockets and comfortable little lives."

My opinion is based on a review of what climate alarmists claim is conclusive, but isn't.

I note: you haven't commented on the piece I posted multiple times in-thread (and I'm supposed to be the denier).
Are you talking about the one that has the link that when you click on it this comes up?

''After review, this post has been removed for failing to meet our editorial standards.''

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

''After review, this post has been removed for failing to meet our editorial standards.''

Post by henry quirk » Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:27 am

I guess so.

When I access the link from my old ipad it comes through clean; from the 13 year old's laptop I get the message you got.

Anyway: read the article. I posted the text too.

Unless, of course you'd rather claim an editorial decision on the part of Forbes invalidates the piece.

What standard was breached: I don't now...neither do you.

This is the scientist...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv

...not a fly by night kinda guy (if credentials mean anything).

And: if you are gonna claim an editorial decision on the part of Forbes invalidates the piece I can offer other pieces by other folks taking a similar contrary view.

Sumthin' tells me you won't take me up on my offer.

-----

hmmm...

https://www.thegwpf.com/nir-shaviv-forb ... w-with-me/

https://www.thegwpf.com/revealed-the-cl ... eview=true

http://www.google.com/search?q=why+did+ ... irloom-srp..

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3257
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Extremist followers

Post by Lacewing » Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:59 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:45 pm
Veggie to Henry wrote:Neither you nor Walker have a clue about anything.
Walker and me and a score of others simply won't be led by the nose by climate alarmists and the folks who direct the alarmists.
That doesn't mean you know anything. :lol: You're willingly led by the nose on other notions.

Extremism is an inability to see a broad range of perspectives in a balanced way (which certainly describes a few of you) -- and EXTREMISM IS PROOF OF BEING LED BY THE NOSE! Do you honestly think manipulation only happens in certain circles? :lol:

Belinda
Posts: 2835
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Effect of human activity on climate change is insignificant

Post by Belinda » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:30 am

Henry Quirk wrote:
Walker and me and a score of others simply won't be led by the nose by climate alarmists and the folks who direct the alarmists.
Make a note of this as it's straight from the horse's mouth . It's a clear and adequate introspection.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"Make a note of this as it's straight from the horse's mouth. It's a clear and adequate introspection."

Post by henry quirk » Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:04 pm

I 'feel' insulted.

Have I been insulted?

meh

Walker
Posts: 6738
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Dialogue, not monologue

Post by Walker » Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:59 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:59 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:45 pm
Veggie to Henry wrote:Neither you nor Walker have a clue about anything.
Walker and me and a score of others simply won't be led by the nose by climate alarmists and the folks who direct the alarmists.
That doesn't mean you know anything. :lol: You're willingly led by the nose on other notions.

Extremism is an inability to see a broad range of perspectives in a balanced way (which certainly describes a few of you) -- and EXTREMISM IS PROOF OF BEING LED BY THE NOSE! Do you honestly think manipulation only happens in certain circles? :lol:
Two sides of an issue from one person is a monologue.
This forum is a dialogue venue.
Therefore, provide either supported agreement or supported disagreement with the topic.

You do neither.
You only insist that others present a monologue.
You neither support the topic, nor refute the topic, nor present both support and refutation, nor alternatives to support or refutation.

You only insist that many views exist.
Well, no shit Sherlock. That's only Step 1.

Everyone but you has advanced beyond Step 1.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3257
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Dialogue, not monologue

Post by Lacewing » Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:18 pm

Walker wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:59 pm
Two sides of an issue from one person is a monologue.
No it's not, Sherlock. It's showing that one person takes more into consideration than one limited set of extreme views. They can still have a discussion about all of the issues. Comprehend? No, of course you don't. You focus on two sides to argue over, and of course "your side" is the "right side". :lol: Do you seriously not see how primitive that is? No, of course you don't. You're not worth having a discussion with because of that. Whereas, if you could get off the extreme positions you like to slobber over, then you might be closer to discussing a broader reality than your limited one. Why would anyone care about your limited reality and dealing with the ignorance that creates it?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests