Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11166 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Nov 06, 2019 9:52 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
They don't actually mean equity or respect in any classical (pre-woke) usage of the words. They use words as weapons with bait and switch, leveraging the emotional implications of the former meanings to gain agreement, while acting not upon the old meaning, but the recent, neomarxist one.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11166 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Nov 06, 2019 10:01 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Jonova, always awesome...

Quote:
Who remembers that 15,000 scientists signed some climate declaration in 2017? The same Prof Ripple, and Bioscience probably hope you don’t, because two years later there is the same rehashed, but with only 11,000 signatories. So 4,000 disappeared without a trace. There are however, the same comic indefendable graphs. Call it “extreme graphing” — every line needs to be diagonal. All “pauses” are disappearing. No fallacy remains unbroken.

To stop storms we apparently need to reduce the global population, stop mining “excessive” minerals, eat more veges,  and we need to preserve biodiversity, reefs, forests and greenery at whatever it was in 1685 or whenever the sacred preindustrial year of Life On Earth is declared. You know the drill — coal and oil are demon spirits. Exorcise them now! Then rinse, repeat and …hand-wash your undies.

This is panic-science: hold the error bars, hide the adjustments and heap on the hype.

Doomsday poll head count shrinks 25%...they didn't mention that, did they. Hide the decline.


If polls matter, why didn't this one?

Quote:
Ten years ago 31,487 American Scientists, including 9,029 with PhD’s signed the Global Warming Petition Project warning that there is no convincing scientific evidence that man-made CO2 will cause catastrophic heating, and that agreements like the Paris Accord are harmful, and hinder science.


--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Logbear
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 248 | TRs
Location: Getchell. Wash
Logbear
  Top

Member
PostWed Nov 06, 2019 10:17 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11166 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Nov 06, 2019 10:34 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
That's interesting, it doesn't actually falsify the claim it purports to 'debunk'.

Funny how a poll only counts if you agree with the position to begin with.

In addition, from Jonova, already linked

Quote:
Strangely, the world’s about to die and yet none of the top climate scientists are willing to put their name on the list. Instead, there are nearly 974 “students” and 342″candidates” for PhD work. About 20% are ecologists, some overlapping part of another 20% are biologists. There are also agri-specialists, economists, activists, policy managers, microbiologists, and zoologists.

After crowing about how unqualified skeptics were, only 156 (1%) of the 11,000 have the word “climate” in their job title or specialty. And even these climate experts mostly seem to be experts in adapting or mitigating climate change. They know things about food, forests, ecology, land use, disease, law, agriculture, policy, economics, communication and tree survival. This is not to say that they are wrong because of their qualifications (they’re wrong because of the arguments they make), but isn’t it rather odd, that the real experts in the field of climate modeling are all missing? Could it be that these 11,000 scientists are the me-too propaganda arm endorsing graphs and arguments that real modelers can’t afford to?


--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Logbear
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 248 | TRs
Location: Getchell. Wash
Logbear
  Top

Member
PostWed Nov 06, 2019 10:37 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 465 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostWed Nov 06, 2019 8:02 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
"... just about any negative prediction can be amplified by imagining that it will cause “social breakdown” and trigger conflict, even war. This has long been common among environmental alarmists. Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 predictions were particularly grim, even suggesting global nuclear war. Few actual climate scientists would go to that level of doomsaying. But the tendency to fantasize about societal impacts is evident. One recent study suggests that sea level may (in the worst case) rise up to 2 meters by 2100:

Such big sea level rises so soon would lead to nightmarish impacts, says Jonathan Bamber of the University of Bristol. “If we see something like that in the next 80 years we are looking at social breakdown on scales that are pretty unimaginable.”

Around 1.79 million square kilometres of land could be lost and up to 187 million people displaced.

(In Judith Curry’s explicit worst-case investigation of sea level, she finds that sea level rise between 1.6 and 2.5 meters is “borderline impossible,” making her plausible worst-case estimate similar but somewhat lower.)

Up to 187 million people displaced certainly seems bad enough. But some have pushed this even further: A “very senior member” (scientist? bureaucrat?) of the IPCC is supposed to have claimed that exposed populations in low-lying nations “will die.” Bjørn Lomborg’s dissection of this claim is instructive. First, he points out that they will not stay and drown. This is so self-evident that you may wonder how both the “very senior member” and the scientist quoting him can believe they will. Nor is it even likely that they will have to move. Lomborg points out that the study in question concludes that adaptation is feasible and that the actual number of displaced individuals will be far lower (around 300,000 or less).

Still, let us for a moment indulge the notion that all those people will have to move in the 80 years left until 2100. Will it cause “social breakdown on scales that are pretty unimaginable”? Looking back at the past 80 years, we can see that at least 150 million people were permanently displaced. So although 187 million certainly represents enormous disruption, it is hardly unimaginable, having basically happened before."

Climate Change—Assessing the Worst Case Scenario

https://quillette.com/2019/11/07/climate-change-assessing-the-worst-case-scenario/

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 924 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostThu Nov 07, 2019 9:34 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
187 million people forced to move in 80 years is the howling extremists worst case scenario?  Even this nearly impossible scenario is utterly trivial in the grand scheme of things.

To keep things in perspective: About 187 million people worldwide are going to voluntarily move every month.

It still amazes me how people get so worked up over something as trivial as global warming.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brian R
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Feb 2018
Posts: 154 | TRs
Location: Fircrest WA
Brian R
  Top

Member
PostThu Nov 07, 2019 9:56 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I suspect the Green New Deal, if fully implemented, would put far far more than 187 million people on the march. Foraging, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brian R
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Feb 2018
Posts: 154 | TRs
Location: Fircrest WA
Brian R
  Top

Member
PostThu Nov 07, 2019 5:22 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Strangely, the world’s about to die and yet none of the top climate scientists are willing to put their name on the list. Instead, there are nearly 974 “students” and 342″candidates” for PhD work. About 20% are ecologists, some overlapping part of another 20% are biologists. There are also agri-specialists, economists, activists, policy managers, microbiologists, and zoologists.

After crowing about how unqualified skeptics were, only 156 (1%) of the 11,000 have the word “climate” in their job title or specialty. And even these climate experts mostly seem to be experts in adapting or mitigating climate change. They know things about food, forests, ecology, land use, disease, law, agriculture, policy, economics, communication and tree survival. This is not to say that they are wrong because of their qualifications (they’re wrong because of the arguments they make), but isn’t it rather odd, that the real experts in the field of climate modeling are all missing? Could it be that these 11,000 scientists are the me-too propaganda arm endorsing graphs and arguments that real modelers can’t afford to?



I've always wondered about this. What's more, do the apparently few "climate scientists" on this list really hold all the keys? They don't necessarily hold a meta view, rather, a somewhat narrow slice. I'd be just as interested in hearing what doctoral-level research astronomers, physicists, chemists have to say. (I don't mean popularizers like Sagan, deGrasse, or, of course, Bill Nye.) I certainly don't need to hear from an angry little white girl trotted out by fools.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 465 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostThu Nov 07, 2019 6:56 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Gotta love the unreliables...

BPA windless
BPA windless

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 465 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostThu Nov 07, 2019 7:19 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brian R wrote:
MtnGoat wrote:
Strangely, the world’s about to die and yet none of the top climate scientists are willing to put their name on the list. Instead, there are nearly 974 “students” and 342″candidates” for PhD work. About 20% are ecologists, some overlapping part of another 20% are biologists. There are also agri-specialists, economists, activists, policy managers, microbiologists, and zoologists.

After crowing about how unqualified skeptics were, only 156 (1%) of the 11,000 have the word “climate” in their job title or specialty. And even these climate experts mostly seem to be experts in adapting or mitigating climate change. They know things about food, forests, ecology, land use, disease, law, agriculture, policy, economics, communication and tree survival. This is not to say that they are wrong because of their qualifications (they’re wrong because of the arguments they make), but isn’t it rather odd, that the real experts in the field of climate modeling are all missing? Could it be that these 11,000 scientists are the me-too propaganda arm endorsing graphs and arguments that real modelers can’t afford to?


I've always wondered about this. What's more, do the apparently few "climate scientists" on this list really hold all the keys? They don't necessarily hold a meta view, rather, a somewhat narrow slice. I'd be just as interested in hearing what doctoral-level research astronomers, physicists, chemists have to say. (I don't mean popularizers like Sagan, deGrasse, or, of course, Bill Nye.) I certainly don't need to hear from an angry little white girl trotted out by fools.

It's always interesting to hear the views of those who are scientifically literate and yet far enough outside the field to be somewhat above the fray and removed from the pressures of conformism and groupthink.  I'd rather get the 10,000 foot viewpoint of a generalist than the opinion of someone whose narrow specialty allows them to be called a 'climate scientist' but who's immersed in the culture of some university climate department.

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11166 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostFri Nov 08, 2019 9:00 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out wrote:
Gotta love the unreliables...

BPA windless
BPA windless

There's a reason we left wind behind after the 19th century.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11166 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostFri Nov 08, 2019 9:02 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out wrote:
It's always interesting to hear the views of those who are scientifically literate and yet far enough outside the field to be somewhat above the fray and removed from the pressures of conformism and groupthink.  I'd rather get the 10,000 foot viewpoint of a generalist than the opinion of someone whose narrow specialty allows them to be called a 'climate scientist' but who's immersed in the culture of some university climate department.

This flies in the face of being told that the only experts who count are the experts who hold one view, the correct view. The fact that expertise in statistics is good enough to critique climate statistic work, that expertise in math is perfectly valid to critique climate math, etc, is all intentionally downplayed to illegitimately, and unscientifically, protect the claims made.

Today is the 10 year anniversary of some brave soul removing the lid from the foul stew of administrative hijinks, antiscience collusion, and f*ckery known as climategate, so in honor of that....


--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 465 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostFri Nov 08, 2019 9:31 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Thinking about taking one of those disposable plastic spoons?  Greta is judging you...

Lol.

Greta is watching
Greta is watching

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11166 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostFri Nov 08, 2019 12:08 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
What, is this a thing now, or just one pic from a twitter feed somewhere?

She can judge me all she likes.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday Damian, chefothefuture, Dogman, ridgescrambler, Bryan K, Eaglecadd!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy