This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

Jump to new

I am not finding anything about wildfires in Scotland in winter Smurf, all I can find is a report about their summer fires. Can you give me a link please? I have had a good google with no success.
 
Ann said:
Offering proof about something occurring in the future is impossible....
Click to expand...
Evidence of what is probable has nothing to do with "proof".
Next, your graphic of the last 1500 year's temperature bears no resemblance to paleoclimate reconstructions.
Winters will be cold, but that is not the issue. What we are aware of is that extreme weather events are more probable in future - that cuts both ways. In terms of 2019, the first 2 months are already warmer on average than any in 2018.

Ann said:
We should be looking at all possible outcomes of future weather scenarios not just one agenda put forward by a political group-think of people.
Click to expand...
We should be looking at the best available science, and that is exactly what the IPCC puts together. You again fail to understand how IPCC Reports come together and perpetuate a myth that there is a political agenda. Why not prove it rather than make your nonsense claims ad nauseum.
 
Ann said:
Can you give me a link please? I have had a good google with no success.
Click to expand...
Fire was at Arthur's Seat, a decent sized hill just outside Edinburgh which is an undeveloped but commonly accessed (by walking up, that's the only way) natural lookout point over the city and surrounds. Was on the BBC news website a few days ago.

Fire is truly tiny by Australian standards, it's just a fire on a hill, but the idea that anything outside catches fire in a place like that during Winter is the real point. Normal weather, statistically, for Edinburgh in February is a daily minimum just below zero, a maximum of 6.1 degrees and a modest amount of rain (or snow) with the preceding Winter months being somewhat wetter.

It should be pretty hard to have living vegetation on fire in that situation - everything should be well and truly damp and rather hard to burn even if you really wanted to.

It's much like the rainforest areas in Tasmania that have recently burnt. Regardless of weather on the day and that the fires were started by lightning, they should simply be too wet to burn anyway. That it was even possible for those areas to burn says a lot in itself.

I'm no alarmist but in all this I see lots of things which could individually be dismissed as freak events, natural variation and so on but the sheer volume of them tells me something's up.
 
Just a note on fire in winter, i lived in the north east of france and when fires were used to clean roadsides and burn weeds :, from memory 40y or so ago, it was done in winter crisp sunny freezy icing conditions
Grass is dead in winter and air humidity is the driest due to below freezing so burnt out where used then
I know it can seem surprising in australia, but not so sure it is actually abnormal
Snow in winter is not a picture perfect event in europe as we kids were always waiting for it..and often disappointed..
 
Reactions: Ann
Joules MM1 said:
diiing ! "......the answer is go with the science!"
Click to expand...

This is a good video if you are smart enough to interpret it properly (and if you ignore the inherent bias in climate science).

Climate science is inherently biased, but even so, it does tend to get it closer to reality than either the climate change deniers or the climate alarmists. The climate change deniers get strength and validity from the fact that the media, both mainstream and social, is the main narrative shoved in everyone's face, and is completely wrong (this video acknowledges this). This means that most of the information people are exposed to is a massive exaggeration of real climate science. People tend to either blindly believe it like the mindless sheep they are, or realise that it's false and reject it (understandable), but go too far and assume the entire narrative is false rather than based on some fact, and dismiss the entire thing (which is wrong but understandable). The situation is extreme enough that anyone being rational is considered an evil member of the opposite side, and since most people are mindless sheep who blindly follow the media, most people consider anyone rational to be a 'climate denier' (sic).

This video itself is as guilty as those it claims are guilty. It also cherry picks and airbrushes. It also fails to acknowledge the inherent bias of climate science. It implies that only the deniers are ignoring the science, and most people who watch it would come away feeling like the mainstream narrative is giving them a reasonable message and that their alarmist beliefs are justified.

The reality is, very, very few people are going to bother looking at the actual scientific data, and if they did they would be incapable of interpreting it, so they will continue looking at the mainstream narrative.

We can't blame people for not looking at the science, because they don't have the ability to understand it, and let's face it, even if they did, they'd be too lazy to bother.

What really should be done is to make the science accessible to laymen. Climate science should publish a consensus view, including clear, tangible predictions and timeframes, clear data, clear responses to frequently asked questions such as "When was the last time the climate was changing at this rate?" "How long ago was atmospheric CO2 this concentrated, why did it occur and what was the result?" etc etc. Timeframes for average temperature rise (or fall) predictions (eg 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years) could be provided yearly, as an average estimate of all the world's climate scientists.

As it is, anyone can cherry pick studies or claims and make a video to prove whatever they like, this is what is done by almost all of them, and so almost all the information in the grey media is worthless at best and dangerous at worst.
 
Sdajii you use so many words to basically sprout BS. Almost everything you say is a distortion, a misrepresentation or a lie.
Better people than I have attempted to dissect your comments. I'll make mine short

The video you said was false/biased whatever simply went through a range of assertions made by CC deniers and demonstrated where they were distorted or lies by going back to the peer reviewed science on the particular topic. And when it was doing this it demonstrated that these players repeatedly air brushed out data, made up graphs, made up statements and so on create doubt about reality of human created global warming.

There is an exccellent Date Line program for anyone interested in seeing how a climate scientist can dissect what is happening in the science around CC.
 

The video cherry picked some errors some sceptics has said (you can't legitimately call them deniers because they acknowledge climate change is real and humans are influencing it. In doing so, you are being disingenuous). The makers of the video basically used the technique of cherry picking the whole way through, and they hypocritically used 'airbrushing' techniques.

Both sides are guilty of misrepresenting and doctoring data. The alarmists are the worst offenders. You display a typical attitude of dogmatically believing the hugely exaggerated mainstream climate narrative (which is a huge exaggeration of the actual science, even biased as it is), and accusing anyone who doesn't blindly believe the exaggerated version of distorting/lying/etc.
 
Sdajii said:
It also fails to acknowledge the inherent bias of climate science
Click to expand...

What?

Bad science will have bias, good science will have no (or as close to as possible) bias. Good climate science will have no bias. To say all climate science is inherently bias, reveals more about your bias than anything else.
 
And so you keep saying ad nauseum Sjajii - regardless of the facts.
No point wasting any more time with you.

Bye
 
Sdajii said:
....anyone can cherry pick studies or claims and make a video to prove whatever they like, this is what is done by almost all of them, and so almost all the information in the grey media is worthless at best and dangerous at worst.
Click to expand...

the inherent challenge with posting the "informed perspective" by taking a middle ground, to be aloof and speak from the outside looking in, is that, you cannot stand on the outside and look in, you cannot be aloof and speak with authority simply because you have never demonstrated you HAVE any authority or any specific or special insight into the subject matter, you have never demonstrated you are specialised in a specific field of climate science, you have never presented you have a Phd or masters, trained or been an understudy in the geology, or physics, of any of the sciences that pertain to this conversation

you are being disingenuous at best and vacuous at worse, when we know you have the wherewithal to post a more thought-ladened and data-driven expose of your own propositions, we know because you can string a series of cognitive prose sentences

this is exactly what potholer54 is speaking to - this dismembering of science by mythical wordy-ness without presenting a viable alternative that contains points that can be contested

the problem that i see with what you have posted here is that there is no alternation in your unverifiable disposition, we cannot tell what you support or what you think is testable, what you think as useable, what you think is valid data.....just verbose non-sense

your ramblings do not add to the debate

let's go back to the words "anybody can cherry pick" well that's what youre doing, youre cherry picking fresh air and debating fresh air, getting off on the angst of your fresh air, because youre filled with the fear of not knowing and pretending to know what you have demonstrate TO know - we all know this diluted hide n seek game of "i know better than scientists" non-sense

add to the debate - bring something for us to look at

look, this is probably the only personal post i am going to make here because your conduct calls it and you can tell i am not a climatologist so i post a lot of pieces and spend a lot of time rereading the pieces before i post them to find whether they meet the basics of educated logic and they are not steeped in emotive logic

i get that your reply is not aimed at me, i get that your reply is more about you than scientists, it is obvious that this is true because you are not a scientist and you are not contesting specific data points or ideas that stand upto a basic test of veracity, that is, are comments designed to wring out evidence that you think is being held back from you or us and that you have the generalised disposition to bring attention to yourself that is of no gain to us ......or you

if you think you have something to offer, offer it ! point to the peer-reviewed data and peer-reviewed conclusions and assessments of that data - at the most basic you could contest meta-data studies rather than a regurgitated meta-ramble

there's now a truck-load of science in this thread for you to pull apart, that's hard work, sure, however the effort is self-informative

one thing as an aside: this distrust of all scientists because a few psuedo and idotic science observers comment with an authoritative tone does not lessen the value of the work produced by earnest scientists that have valid research and the same fear that drives the flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers and anti-moon-landers is the same 'yell from the rooftops' fear we see in all wordy anti-hero commentary

Australia is working its way out of a bear market which began in 2007, been a long time.....
the way to contribute to a bull and gain from this new bull phase is to inject incisive and actionable evidence and when that evidence does not stand up to scrutiny we'll test something else, regardless of fears brought about with distracting emotive logic, the testable failed data points are important to have, we move ahead because of them....
 
fiftyeight said:
What?

Bad science will have bias, good science will have no (or as close to as possible) bias. Good climate science will have no bias. To say all climate science is inherently bias, reveals more about your bias than anything else.
Click to expand...

Well, bad science doesn't necessarily have bias, but biased science is bad science, I agree. Good science has no bias, I agree. Unfortunately, most science is biased. It is a sad fact, and is the main reason I left my own science career; unfortunately it is difficult to get far without catering to the bias.

In the case of climate science, if you write papers which contradict the popular narrative, it's difficult to get published (this is true in most other branches of science too). If you want to make a name for yourself, you need to publish the most extreme version of the story possible (again, this is true is in many areas of science). If you publish something which says 'climate change isn't really as bad as most of them say' you can pretty much kiss your funding and career goodbye. This causes an inherent and quite obvious form of bias, wouldn't you say?

In the field of genetics (closer to my area) you can't publish many facts, even with clear evidence. Some of them are so obvious that any half decent geneticist sees them because they're obvious, but they're simply not allowed to be published (and in that case I can actually see the reasons for it). A lot of what is said about human genetics is completely untrue. I understand why, and while I grudgingly admit it's probably too destructive to publish, I don't like the deliberately misleading information put out there.

My sister threw her PhD in when it became clear that the peer review process was biased. The reasons are different from climate change (politics and money) or genetics (literal global security), it was just internal politics, but in the field of theoretical particle physics (totally outside my field) there are prevailing ideas, the people running the peer reviews are all on board with them, anyone who doesn't agree doesn't get let in, and anyone who challenges with a new idea gets denied publication even if it has as much validity or more than the popular theories. This is not the way science should work, but it is the way science does work.

I left science because while I love true science, science is more politics and money than science.

Unfortunately, climate science will remain unaccountable because there is no clear, tangible consensus view available, so the cherry picking game can continue (on both sides). The money is what will drive the results, and carbon taxes bring in money while stifling targetted economies is both lucrative and strategic.

It doesn't take a genius to see that many politicians who don't care about the environment are totally on board with the carbon narrative, which shows it financially suits them (if the whole concept of a tax and the ability to control what other nations do with their industries wasn't already a sufficiently obvious motive). If you don't think an inherent bias is going to alter the findings, goodness, why are we even bothering to have a conversation?
 
Many people have an image of the scientist as a research guy in a lab
Sadly, in Australia at least where i have worked with scientists, due to the extremely low level of private r and d, scientists spend most of their time on computers writing paper to gain publication credits and filling paperwork to get grants and extend their tenure.i can not blame them this is the way it works
Real science is done by some phd students following the leads and guidance of the professors with as you can imagine an inherent bias and absence of objectivity
Worked for 5y or so with top science org in Australia
Trend following but who can blame them, if keen and scientific minded, just stick to applied sciences would be my recommendation
 
I'm not a scientist, but I have been around science and scientists in relation to my particular field for quite some time, a keen consumer of said science let's say. I am also in the Genesis of performing a study in my field (with other professionals, just need a kindly veterinarian with a digital xray machine and we are iff ti the races)

From that perspective I agree entirely with the above.

Of all the papers I've read and there are dozens and dozens and dozens of them , perhaps only one out of ten have any sort of fallot application in the real world.

The great majority of them are either ridiculously biased, have a defined commercial objective, or suffer from one or more fatal flaws in experiment design.

A couple of examples

1 / testing the physiological effects of a particular feed supplement for racehorses (which travel somewhere in the region of 1000 m per minute or more) I'm at high speed treadmill travelling no faster than 800 metres per minute. The physiological and metabolic ramifications a completely different at those two speeds rendering the conclusions completely invalid.

2/ Testing the physiological and biomechanical efficacy of a particular huth appliance on high speed treadmills and drawing definitive conclusions from that; horses are not exercised on moving rubber mats or anything remotely similar to that surface. Additionally the appliance concerned was only tested against a single competing appliance most likely to yield negative results in comparison, ignoring a host of other solutions regularly employed.

The first study didn't really have a commercial objective and was just I dumb study incorrectly designed. The 2nd was being paid for by a company with a product to market, with the obvious bias there.

One of our closest friends was a big knob in the field of gene technology, and regularly regailed of the follies of some of the studies performed and their inherent biases. Also have several clients who are phds in their respective fields and also confirm this point, a topic of many of our discussions.
 
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

set your comparative years and watch it unfold

suggest place in faves and revisit end of this year



 
Regular visits by icebreakers from China, Russia and Sweden will keep the Polarstern supplied and recrewed so that by late 2020, when the project ends, more than 300 researchers from at least 17 nations will have taken turns to work there.
Click to expand...

Consider the issue of sea-ice thickness in the Arctic. For more than 40 years satellites have swept over the north pole and charted dramatic declines in sea-ice cover as global warming has inexorably strengthened its grip on Earth.
Click to expand...

They still get confused by light snow lying on top of ice. “And that means we are getting errors in our measurements of ice thickness,” adds Wilkinson.
Click to expand...

How anchoring a ship to an ice floe will help fight climate change
Robin McKie

Sun 14 Apr 2019 01.00 AEST Sun 14 Apr 2019 13.24 AEST
a lot to get thru

https://www.theguardian.com/science...h-ship-arctic-ocean-ice-floe?CMP=share_btn_tw
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fun with ChatGPT
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
SirRumpole
Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?
220 221 222
Replies
4K
Views
416K
basilio
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...