Climate change: July set to be world's warmest month on record

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Deflecting to the totally unrelated point of "There's nothing in this article that questions the validity of the science." when the subject matter is strictly about scientific predictions.

 

"The influence of these billionaires consists of what technologies they choose to invest in to mitigate climate change. A different matter entirely."

Feigning to not understand politics and investment opportunities and the dynamics between the two!!



And the crowd cheers uproarilously! 

Another completely irrelevant reply. My references have been to the science. What do "politics and investment opportunities" have to do with that? You got some evidence that there is some kind of massive conspiracy underwritten by certain billionaires to produce a vast web of falsified research?

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What don't you understand about the fact that this addresses the problems of educating computers? It's not about how scientists work. The problem with these machines is that they can come up with absurd conclusions unchecked by engagement with reality. Scientists research is an actual examination of reality. Research is based on other reality checked research.  Reality provides the check. And this ties in to your ridiculous belief in a vast scientific conspiracy fueled by billionaires' cash. You've got nothing.

 

My original quote of the article:

 

The Prediction-Explanation Fallacy:  A Pervasive Problem in Scientific Applications of Machine Learning

 

However, previous authors have focused mainly on the other side of the issue—namely, the fact that “classical” statistical models optimized for accurate explanation tend to perform badly in prediction tasks (more on this later). My goal is to redress this imbalance, by explicitly discussing the limitations and pitfalls of predictive models when they are used in the context of scientific explanation. As I demonstrate below, the prediction-explanation fallacy can lead to distorted and misleading conclusions—not only about the results of a single analysis, but also about the robustness and replicability of the phenomenon under study.

Here he is not addressing ML but very specifically "the limitations and pitfalls of predictive models when they are used in the context of scientific explanation."

Uhm, difficulty understanding plain English?

Now I had linked to a second article:

The Fallacy of Forecasting in a Complex World

Studying historical statistics can be incredibly useful when trying to explain what happened. But just identifying a trend in statistical data does not automatically translate into a forecast for the future. Statistics is an explanatory tool, not a predictive tool. If you try to bridge statistical data into a predictive model, you may find yourself drowning in a lake that is on average only 4 feet deep or burning to death in a building that is on average 75 degrees.

I'd bet a dollar to a donut that you didn't read that, either.  Will you "debunk" it or claim irrelevancy, too?

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

What don't you understand about the fact that the position of gun manufacturers is not analogous to the position of  the fossil fuel industry. Manufacturing firearms is not especially harmful. But the extraction and refining of oil and gas is.

Gun manufacturers use steel, lumber, petroleum, energy and any number of other things that require the desecration of the environment, and their products kill people. But to be clear, it is your position that it is people, and not guns that kill people? 

 

People are trained to find and extract fossil fuels at universities. Why are universities not responsible for what they are teaching people to do? 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

"Manufacturing firearms is not especially harmful."

Why the qualifier?

He has nothing. 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming
Study debunks idea that older models were inaccurate

https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

Again, only some of them. 

[placeholder]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

My original quote of the article:

 

The Prediction-Explanation Fallacy:  A Pervasive Problem in Scientific Applications of Machine Learning

 

However, previous authors have focused mainly on the other side of the issue—namely, the fact that “classical” statistical models optimized for accurate explanation tend to perform badly in prediction tasks (more on this later). My goal is to redress this imbalance, by explicitly discussing the limitations and pitfalls of predictive models when they are used in the context of scientific explanation. As I demonstrate below, the prediction-explanation fallacy can lead to distorted and misleading conclusions—not only about the results of a single analysis, but also about the robustness and replicability of the phenomenon under study.

Here he is not addressing ML but very specifically "the limitations and pitfalls of predictive models when they are used in the context of scientific explanation."

Uhm, difficulty understanding plain English?

Now I had linked to a second article:

The Fallacy of Forecasting in a Complex World

Studying historical statistics can be incredibly useful when trying to explain what happened. But just identifying a trend in statistical data does not automatically translate into a forecast for the future. Statistics is an explanatory tool, not a predictive tool. If you try to bridge statistical data into a predictive model, you may find yourself drowning in a lake that is on average only 4 feet deep or burning to death in a building that is on average 75 degrees.

I'd bet a dollar to a donut that you didn't read that, either.  Will you "debunk" it or claim irrelevancy, too?

You fail to note that the issue these articles are addressing here is that mere statistical trends can't be depended on to predict the future.

But climate change models aren't about mere statistical trends. In fact what you don't seem to understand is that the understanding isn't derived from the trends, but rather that the trends confirm the original scientific understanding. The fact that the model based on this scientific understanding has so successfully predicted these trends is what makes the theory so compelling.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Gun manufacturers use steel, lumber, petroleum, energy and any number of other things that require the desecration of the environment, and their products kill people. But to be clear, it is your position that it is people, and not guns that kill people? 

 

People are trained to find and extract fossil fuels at universities. Why are universities not responsible for what they are teaching people to do? 

What don't you understand about the fact that the fossil fuel industry is, contrary to your claim, a major producer of methane and CO2 in its operation and therefore a major contributor to climate change. What happens after that is not relevant to your false claim that the oil industry is not a major contributor to climate change. What is there about that that you don't understand?

If, in fact, the gun industry during it's manufacturing process was somehow directly responsible for gun deaths, you'd have a point. Unless that's what you're claiming, you've got nothing. And if that is what you're claiming, please provide, for a change, a link to an credible source.

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Again, only some of them. 

And, again, as I pointed out, most of them. And to an astonishingly accurate degree. It isn't that they just predicted there would be global warming, but that their quantitative positions so closely matched reality. It's comparable, statistically, to the situation in sports betting, where a prediction of victory isn't enough, but it's the margin that is determinative of the validity of one's bets.

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Another completely irrelevant reply. My references have been to the science. What do "politics and investment opportunities" have to do with that? You got some evidence that there is some kind of massive conspiracy underwritten by certain billionaires to produce a vast web of falsified research?

You see no tie-ins whatsoever.  No connections.  Your science is completely insulated from money and politics.  No outside pressure whatsoever.  All scientists are operating with utter objectivity, no bias, utterly altruistic.  Well, your scientists, to be sure.  The scientists on the other side of the fence are completely driven by money and politics, are unduly pressured by outside interests, possess no objectivity and operate only with severe bias, and have sinister intentions of allowing the world to be destroyed despite knowing full well that they're wrong.

Hi, I'm on earth.  placeholder, can you direct me to where this alternate reality exists?  I'd like to go because it seems an idyllic place to be.  I want to be right all the time, too!

"You got some evidence that there is some kind of massive conspiracy underwritten by certain billionaires to produce a vast web of falsified research?"

misrepresentation
 - the act or state of being represented incorrectly, improperly, falsely, or unsatisfactorily

Here you are purposely misrepresenting what I've said.  I've stated unequivocally that there is no grand conspiracy yet you're insisting that that is what I believe as you are now asking me to produce evidence of a conspiracy..



Again, in this unknown, unbelievable world of yours private investment influencing, or even dictating governmental policies does not exist.  Gvoernments have never, ever gone to war to protect private interests abroad.  No, that just doesn't happen.  I must be crazy to think thoughts like that.

naiveté
 - the state or quality of being inexperienced or unsophisticated, especially in being artless, credulous, or uncritical

I hope this definition does not describe you.

[Tippaporn]

25 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Gun manufacturers use steel, lumber, petroleum, energy and any number of other things that require the desecration of the environment, and their products kill people. But to be clear, it is your position that it is people, and not guns that kill people? 

 

People are trained to find and extract fossil fuels at universities. Why are universities not responsible for what they are teaching people to do? 

Oh please, Yellowtail, stop already with the logical analogies.  placeholder had just "debunked" your analogy as a false equivalency.  I should really down vote your post.  <sarc> 

[Tippaporn]

28 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

He has nothing. 

He has nothing.™

[Tippaporn]

29 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Again, only some of them. 

placeholder, I know you cherry picked and didn't address the point below from one of my previous posts.  Will you do so now and tell us which past models were accurate, which were not, and why they were or were not accurate?  I'm not looking for a copy and paste from some article.  I'm assuming you've done your own research.

  

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Just a silly question, I know, but have you personally "debunked" that yourself?  Did you do any research with the actual raw data and objectively determine for yourself whether or not these older models actually did correctly predict global warming?

Or, is this what they're telling you and as you have no way of fact checking yourself you simply accept what they tell you at face value.  Surrendering all of your precious trust?

 

[Tippaporn]

39 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You fail to note that the issue these articles are addressing here is that mere statistical trends can't be depended on to predict the future.

But climate change models aren't about mere statistical trends. In fact what you don't seem to understand is that the understanding isn't derived from the trends, but rather that the trends confirm the original scientific understanding. The fact that the model based on this scientific understanding has so successfully predicted these trends is what makes the theory so compelling.

Now that was an unusually cogent post, placeholder.  I understand it perfectly and it's quite logical.  Yet for people like you and me, those of us who are not privy to any of the raw data, or the actual source of the raw data, and can never validate it's true authenticity, we are left in a singular position.  One of trust.  Are you in disagreement here?  I cannot conceive that you would not be as you are not a climatologist, you are not engaged in research, and you do not have access to the raw data or can validate it's authenticity yourself.

 

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You see no tie-ins whatsoever.  No connections.  Your science is completely insulated from money and politics.  No outside pressure whatsoever.  All scientists are operating with utter objectivity, no bias, utterly altruistic.  Well, your scientists, to be sure.  The scientists on the other side of the fence are completely driven by money and politics, are unduly pressured by outside interests, possess no objectivity and operate only with severe bias, and have sinister intentions of allowing the world to be destroyed despite knowing full well that they're wrong.

Hi, I'm on earth.  placeholder, can you direct me to where this alternate reality exists?  I'd like to go because it seems an idyllic place to be.  I want to be right all the time, too!

"You got some evidence that there is some kind of massive conspiracy underwritten by certain billionaires to produce a vast web of falsified research?"

misrepresentation
 - the act or state of being represented incorrectly, improperly, falsely, or unsatisfactorily

Here you are purposely misrepresenting what I've said.  I've stated unequivocally that there is no grand conspiracy yet you're insisting that that is what I believe as you are now asking me to produce evidence of a conspiracy..



Again, in this unknown, unbelievable world of yours private investment influencing, or even dictating governmental policies does not exist.  Gvoernments have never, ever gone to war to protect private interests abroad.  No, that just doesn't happen.  I must be crazy to think thoughts like that.

naiveté
 - the state or quality of being inexperienced or unsophisticated, especially in being artless, credulous, or uncritical

I hope this definition does not describe you.

What form are you claiming this alleged influence that billionaires and politicians are applying to scientists so that they alter the results of their research? Either scientists are lying about their research or not. And if they are lying about it, it would have to be on a mass basis. Do you have any actual specific that this is taking place? And if you're not alleging that billionaires and politicians are pressuring scientists to alter the results of their research, how do these nefarious actors affect what is published in scientific journals?

 

As for the scientists who opposed the climate change model, their models have failed, and with them, their predictions. They're mostly older scientists who are resistant to new theories. Just as in the past, older scientists often resisted other major theories. Louis Agassiz, the great geologist who came up with the theory of ice ages, opposed evolution. As Thomas Kuhn noted. a scientific revolution isn't complete until the older generation of scientists dies off.

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Now that was an unusually cogent post, placeholder.  I understand it perfectly and it's quite logical.  Yet for people like you and me, those of us who are not privy to any of the raw data, or the actual source of the raw data, and can never validate it's true authenticity, we are left in a singular position.  One of trust.  Are you in disagreement here?  I cannot conceive that you would not be as you are not a climatologist, you are not engaged in research, and you do not have access to the raw data or can validate it's authenticity yourself.

 

I don't care whether or not you understand or approve of my post. What it does do, is blow a big fat hole in your claims about statistical reasoning and it's relation to science. Invoking machine learning as relevant was ridiculous.

 

As for the rest, what don't you understand about the fantastic improbability of all these scientists agreeing based on falsity? And, given the basis of your objections, why shouldn't we apply the same disbelief to all of science?. You clearly have no appreciation of what it means to be virtually impossible. As in, it's virtually impossible you're going to win the the billion dollar lottery. Yes, there is an infinitesimal chance. Should someone plan their future based on their chance of winning?.

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

What don't you understand about the fact that the fossil fuel industry is, contrary to your claim, a major producer of methane and CO2 in its operation and therefore a major contributor to climate change. What happens after that is not relevant to your false claim that the oil industry is not a major contributor to climate change. What is there about that that you don't understand?

If, in fact, the gun industry during it's manufacturing process was somehow directly responsible for gun deaths, you'd have a point. Unless that's what you're claiming, you've got nothing. And if that is what you're claiming, please provide, for a change, a link to an credible source.

And, again, as I pointed out, most of them. And to an astonishingly accurate degree. It isn't that they just predicted there would be global warming, but that their quantitative positions so closely matched reality. It's comparable, statistically, to the situation in sports betting, where a prediction of victory isn't enough, but it's the margin that is determinative of the validity of one's bets.

People are trained to find and extract fossil fuels at universities. Why are universities not responsible for what they are teaching people to do? 

 

Most of them only means something over 50%, if it were 91%, they'd have said over 90%. 

 

They only look close on the graphs, I think if you look at the error as a percentage of the change, they vary wildly. Did they not cover this in gender studies? 

 

But stay the course, because you've got nothing!

 

 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

What form are you claiming this alleged influence that billionaires and politicians are applying to scientists so that they alter the results of their research? Either scientists are lying about their research or not. And if they are lying about it, it would have to be on a mass basis. Do you have any actual specific that this is taking place? And if you're not alleging that billionaires and politicians are pressuring scientists to alter the results of their research, how do these nefarious actors affect what is published in scientific journals?

 

As for the scientists who opposed the climate change model, their models have failed, and with them, their predictions. They're mostly older scientists who are resistant to new theories. Just as in the past, older scientists often resisted other major theories. Louis Agassiz, the great geologist who came up with the theory of ice ages, opposed evolution. As Thomas Kuhn noted. a scientific revolution isn't complete until the older generation of scientists dies off.

Do you think someone like Bill Gates gets on the horn to individual scientists and pressures them to alter their research?  Do you have any idea of how this dodgy and corrupt world works?  Do you think that the likes of Mao, Hitler and Stalin no longer exist in the world?  That Bill Gates is wonderful human being because he has a charitable foundation?

Again, does the definition of naiveté fit you to a tee?

What was Climategate?  What did Climategate expose?  Do you ever consider the implications and what it does to the credibility of science?  Or how it affects peoples' trust in science?  I don't want to hear about the so-called eight "independent" committees which more than less gave it all a pass.

 

Climategate: Beyond Inquiry Panels

Two British committees, one Dutch committee and a US Senate committee have investigated Climategate — the disclosure from emails that scientists at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University sought to withhold data from and sabotage research publications of other scientists questioning the conventional wisdom on global warming.

The first three committees gave CRU scientists and collaborators — including Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa and Kevin Trenberth — a slap on the wrist without calling them outright frauds. The Minority Staff Report of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, however, has accused the scientists of (a) obstructing release of damaging data and information, (b) manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions, (c) colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science ‘consensus’, and (d) assuming activist roles to influence the political process.

The Climategate Whitewash Continues

Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, “nothing to see here.” Last week “The Independent Climate Change E‑mails Review,” commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia.

As I said, no conspiracies.  But then there are no coincidences, either.  How convenient and highly coincidental that an "independent" committee to investigate a member of East Angiia was funded by East Anglia?  Don't you question anything, placeholder?  No alarm bells ever go off in your head?  Do you just think to yourself, "Well that's odd but it doesn't mean anything."  And just mosey on as if nothing had ever happened?

This purportedly independent review comes on the heels of two others — one by the University of East Anglia itself and the other by Penn State University, both completed in the spring, concerning its own employee, Prof. Michael Mann.

Gee, it must be nice to investigate yourself and declare "nothing to see here, folks."

Readers of both earlier reports need to know that both institutions receive tens of millions in federal global warming research funding (which can be confirmed by perusing the grant histories of Messrs. Jones or Mann, compiled from public sources, that are available online at freerepublic.com). Any admission of substantial scientific misbehavior would likely result in a significant loss of funding.

Money not involved?  According to you it's not.  Why can't you see what others see?  What closes your eyes to quite factual information?

You see, placeholder, the difference between you, and some of the other posters here, and the climate change "deniers" is the issue of trust.  You seem to believe that this is a rather idyllic world where tycoons and governments and major institutions are all the peoples' best friends.  Their every word is to be implicitly trusted and if trust is not given due to obvious corruption then it's conspiracy theory.  What a quaint, charming and sheltered world you must live in.  It is beyond your comprehension that people see things in the world that you ignore, or that they have a different understanding of the way the world works due to what they see.

 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

I don't care whether or not you understand or approve of my post. What it does do, is blow a big fat hole in your claims about statistical reasoning and it's relation to science. Invoking machine learning as relevant was ridiculous.

 

As for the rest, what don't you understand about the fantastic improbability of all these scientists agreeing based on falsity? And, given the basis of your objections, why shouldn't we apply the same disbelief to all of science?. You clearly have no appreciation of what it means to be virtually impossible. As in, it's virtually impossible you're going to win the the billion dollar lottery. Yes, there is an infinitesimal chance. Should someone plan their future based on their chance of winning?.

"I don't care whether or not you understand or approve of my post."

I never thought you did.  But I did give you a compliment.  I do believe in giving credit when it is due, even when it's to an opponent.  It's only fair.

"Invoking machine learning as relevant was ridiculous."

You're now feigning being "dumb as rocks" to make it appear that you don't at all understand that the article also covered predictions apart from ML.  You're trying to pretend that it was only about ML.  I provided you quotes twice now to show that to be true.  It's the same tactic you used to "stay on target" that I'm engaging in conspiracy theory even when I state upfront that I don't believe it to be conspiracy theory.  No matter to you.  If you can't fight honestly then by all means scratch and claw and hit below the belt.  I'm hip.



Again, cherry picking what you respond to.  You avoided answering the direct question.  Like a good hack politician, if you can't answer a question then you don't.  Aren't we all, you and I both, in a position where we have to rely on trust in 3rd parties?

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

What form are you claiming this alleged influence that billionaires and politicians are applying to scientists so that they alter the results of their research? Either scientists are lying about their research or not. And if they are lying about it, it would have to be on a mass basis. Do you have any actual specific that this is taking place? And if you're not alleging that billionaires and politicians are pressuring scientists to alter the results of their research, how do these nefarious actors affect what is published in scientific journals?

 

As for the scientists who opposed the climate change model, their models have failed, and with them, their predictions. They're mostly older scientists who are resistant to new theories. Just as in the past, older scientists often resisted other major theories. Louis Agassiz, the great geologist who came up with the theory of ice ages, opposed evolution. As Thomas Kuhn noted. a scientific revolution isn't complete until the older generation of scientists dies off.

I find this interesting:

"As Thomas Kuhn noted. a scientific revolution isn't complete until the older generation of scientists dies off."

What is Thomas Kuhn suggesting here?  That "group think" is operative within the science community?  And not until the last of that group has died off can we move on to . . . to . . . a new generation of "group think?"  That's something to consider, isn't it?

"And if they are lying about it, it would have to be on a mass basis."

Would it have anything to do with the new "group think?"

BTW, are there no older generation scientists who are ardent believers of climate change?  If there are then doesn't that fact kinda play havoc with Kuhn's conclusion?

Or perhaps there's more in play which would account for so many like-minded scientist on climate change.  Tell me, placeholder, what happens to a scientist whose conclusions are counter to the conclusions of climate change scientists?

Nobel Prize Winner Who Doesn't Believe Climate Crisis Has Speech Canceled

"Nobel Laureate (Physics 2022) Dr. John Clauser was to present a seminar on climate models to the IMF on Thursday and now his talk has been summarily cancelled," the Co2 Coalition said in a statement. "According to an email he received last evening, the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, had read the flyer for John's July 25 zoom talk and summarily and immediately canceled the talk. Technically, it was 'postponed,'" the statement added.

 

Again, is it a matter of naiveté on your part that you would pretend that pressure to conform to the "consensus" scientists doesn't exist?

This article rather sums it up nicely in a single sentence.

The four types of climate denier, and why you should ignore them all

But the deniers are not all the same. They tend to fit into one of four different categories: the shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool.

Judgment Day:

The science is clear, the severity understood at the highest levels everywhere, and serious debates about what to do are turning into action. The deniers have nothing to contribute to this.

What is this?  Mob rule?  Blowing off contrary views ain't science.  It's mob rule.  And you're all for it!! 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/6/2023 at 12:32 PM, Danderman123 said:

Okay, I was a bit frustrated that your answer conveyed a lack of understanding  of science.

 

You questioned whether islands now being swamped are sinking,or covered by rising seas. Implicit in your comment is that you don't believe or understand that scientists can measure sea levels very accurately. 

 

I can address either, in detail.

 

Do you deny that sea level rise is carefully measured?

I know that sea level rise where I live is measured in millimeters per year, and I can see for myself that the rise is insignificant in 60 years.

Is it your contention that sea level rises higher in certain parts of the planet from other parts of the planet?

[Danderman123]

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I know that sea level rise where I live is measured in millimeters per year, and I can see for myself that the rise is insignificant in 60 years.

Is it your contention that sea level rises higher in certain parts of the planet from other parts of the planet?

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

 

What you are effectively saying is that sea level rise won't be a global issue in your lifetime. This is true.   Sea level rise is only impacting low lying areas now. At a rate of an inch a decade, its more of a 2100 problem.

 

So for those who care about themselves, and not future generations, you don't have to worry about it.

[BritManToo]

On 9/6/2023 at 7:32 AM, Danderman123 said:

You questioned whether islands now being swamped are sinking,or covered by rising seas. Implicit in your comment is that you don't believe or understand that scientists can measure sea levels very accurately.

Which islands are getting swamped, most of the ones they predicted were going under have got bigger.

 

Another climate alarmist prediction epic fail.

[Danderman123]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Which islands are getting swamped, most of the ones they predicted were going under have got bigger.

 

Another climate alarmist prediction epic fail.

Which islands were predicted to be inundated?

 

Sea levels have risen largely as predicted, so it would be an incompetent scientist who couldn't calculate whether an island would be flooded.

 

Or, do you have a dim memory of some tabloid headline?

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

 

What you are effectively saying is that sea level rise won't be a global issue in your lifetime. This is true.   Sea level rise is only impacting low lying areas now. At a rate of an inch a decade, its more of a 2100 problem.

 

So for those who care about themselves, and not future generations, you don't have to worry about it.

Why would I be concerned about something that will happen long after I'm dead and burnt? I did my bit for the future of humanity by not having children to exploit and pollute the planet, and I see no reason to do anything more. After all, I'm not flying around in a private jet to talk talk conferences about climate change, and I drive a minimal distance given the cost of petrol these days.

Personally, if talking about carbon footprint, I must be almost at the level of insignificant output. My electricity comes from hydro, and my travel amounts to average 20 km a week.

[BritManToo]

8 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Which islands were predicted to be inundated?

 

Sea levels have risen largely as predicted, so it would be an incompetent scientist who couldn't calculate whether an island would be flooded.

 

Or, do you have a dim memory of some tabloid headline?

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html

How are the crops going on all that new land? Oh wait, it's just sand and pebbles.

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Do you think someone like Bill Gates gets on the horn to individual scientists and pressures them to alter their research?  Do you have any idea of how this dodgy and corrupt world works?  Do you think that the likes of Mao, Hitler and Stalin no longer exist in the world?  That Bill Gates is wonderful human being because he has a charitable foundation?

Again, does the definition of naiveté fit you to a tee?

What was Climategate?  What did Climategate expose?  Do you ever consider the implications and what it does to the credibility of science?  Or how it affects peoples' trust in science?  I don't want to hear about the so-called eight "independent" committees which more than less gave it all a pass.

 

Climategate: Beyond Inquiry Panels

Two British committees, one Dutch committee and a US Senate committee have investigated Climategate — the disclosure from emails that scientists at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University sought to withhold data from and sabotage research publications of other scientists questioning the conventional wisdom on global warming.

The first three committees gave CRU scientists and collaborators — including Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa and Kevin Trenberth — a slap on the wrist without calling them outright frauds. The Minority Staff Report of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, however, has accused the scientists of (a) obstructing release of damaging data and information, (b) manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions, (c) colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science ‘consensus’, and (d) assuming activist roles to influence the political process.

The Climategate Whitewash Continues

Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, “nothing to see here.” Last week “The Independent Climate Change E‑mails Review,” commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia.

As I said, no conspiracies.  But then there are no coincidences, either.  How convenient and highly coincidental that an "independent" committee to investigate a member of East Angiia was funded by East Anglia?  Don't you question anything, placeholder?  No alarm bells ever go off in your head?  Do you just think to yourself, "Well that's odd but it doesn't mean anything."  And just mosey on as if nothing had ever happened?

This purportedly independent review comes on the heels of two others — one by the University of East Anglia itself and the other by Penn State University, both completed in the spring, concerning its own employee, Prof. Michael Mann.

Gee, it must be nice to investigate yourself and declare "nothing to see here, folks."

Readers of both earlier reports need to know that both institutions receive tens of millions in federal global warming research funding (which can be confirmed by perusing the grant histories of Messrs. Jones or Mann, compiled from public sources, that are available online at freerepublic.com). Any admission of substantial scientific misbehavior would likely result in a significant loss of funding.

Money not involved?  According to you it's not.  Why can't you see what others see?  What closes your eyes to quite factual information?

You see, placeholder, the difference between you, and some of the other posters here, and the climate change "deniers" is the issue of trust.  You seem to believe that this is a rather idyllic world where tycoons and governments and major institutions are all the peoples' best friends.  Their every word is to be implicitly trusted and if trust is not given due to obvious corruption then it's conspiracy theory.  What a quaint, charming and sheltered world you must live in.  It is beyond your comprehension that people see things in the world that you ignore, or that they have a different understanding of the way the world works due to what they see.

 

Climategate exposed virtually nothing. The major claim by the Times was exploded. The Times had to retract the major claim of  its article as I noted earlier. The rest of what you offer is just empty accusations with not a shred of valid evidence. The report of the minority (i.e. Republican) subcommittee should be taken seriously?

 

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

"I don't care whether or not you understand or approve of my post."

I never thought you did.  But I did give you a compliment.  I do believe in giving credit when it is due, even when it's to an opponent.  It's only fair.

"Invoking machine learning as relevant was ridiculous."

You're now feigning being "dumb as rocks" to make it appear that you don't at all understand that the article also covered predictions apart from ML.  You're trying to pretend that it was only about ML.  I provided you quotes twice now to show that to be true.  It's the same tactic you used to "stay on target" that I'm engaging in conspiracy theory even when I state upfront that I don't believe it to be conspiracy theory.  No matter to you.  If you can't fight honestly then by all means scratch and claw and hit below the belt.  I'm hip.



Again, cherry picking what you respond to.  You avoided answering the direct question.  Like a good hack politician, if you can't answer a question then you don't.  Aren't we all, you and I both, in a position where we have to rely on trust in 3rd parties?

It's still ridiculous. They were talking about teaching computers how to judge information. Why would  you even bring that up. And what you thought was evidence that supported your case actually undermined it. You're the one who keeps on claiming that the climatologists' work is based on statistical trends and not on real science. As per usual, you've got it backwards. The scientific models of the 70's were borne out by the subsequent data. The predictions of the denialists were repeatedly proven to be wrong.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I find this interesting:

"As Thomas Kuhn noted. a scientific revolution isn't complete until the older generation of scientists dies off."

What is Thomas Kuhn suggesting here?  That "group think" is operative within the science community?  And not until the last of that group has died off can we move on to . . . to . . . a new generation of "group think?"  That's something to consider, isn't it?

"And if they are lying about it, it would have to be on a mass basis."

Would it have anything to do with the new "group think?"

BTW, are there no older generation scientists who are ardent believers of climate change?  If there are then doesn't that fact kinda play havoc with Kuhn's conclusion?

Or perhaps there's more in play which would account for so many like-minded scientist on climate change.  Tell me, placeholder, what happens to a scientist whose conclusions are counter to the conclusions of climate change scientists?

Nobel Prize Winner Who Doesn't Believe Climate Crisis Has Speech Canceled

"Nobel Laureate (Physics 2022) Dr. John Clauser was to present a seminar on climate models to the IMF on Thursday and now his talk has been summarily cancelled," the Co2 Coalition said in a statement. "According to an email he received last evening, the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, had read the flyer for John's July 25 zoom talk and summarily and immediately canceled the talk. Technically, it was 'postponed,'" the statement added.

 

Again, is it a matter of naiveté on your part that you would pretend that pressure to conform to the "consensus" scientists doesn't exist?

This article rather sums it up nicely in a single sentence.

The four types of climate denier, and why you should ignore them all

But the deniers are not all the same. They tend to fit into one of four different categories: the shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool.

Judgment Day:

The science is clear, the severity understood at the highest levels everywhere, and serious debates about what to do are turning into action. The deniers have nothing to contribute to this.

What is this?  Mob rule?  Blowing off contrary views ain't science.  It's mob rule.  And you're all for it!! 

At a certain point in time, when a theory is massively supported by evidence it's time to move on. And when the critics repeatedly get it wrong, they should no longer be taken seriously.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

At a certain point in time, when a theory is massively supported by evidence it's time to move on. And when the critics repeatedly get it wrong, they should no longer be taken seriously.

The flatness of the Earth was massively supported by evidence for thousands of years before it wasn't. 

 

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I find this interesting:

"As Thomas Kuhn noted. a scientific revolution isn't complete until the older generation of scientists dies off."

What is Thomas Kuhn suggesting here?  That "group think" is operative within the science community?  And not until the last of that group has died off can we move on to . . . to . . . a new generation of "group think?"  That's something to consider, isn't it?

"And if they are lying about it, it would have to be on a mass basis."

Would it have anything to do with the new "group think?"

BTW, are there no older generation scientists who are ardent believers of climate change?  If there are then doesn't that fact kinda play havoc with Kuhn's conclusion?

Or perhaps there's more in play which would account for so many like-minded scientist on climate change.  Tell me, placeholder, what happens to a scientist whose conclusions are counter to the conclusions of climate change scientists?

Nobel Prize Winner Who Doesn't Believe Climate Crisis Has Speech Canceled

"Nobel Laureate (Physics 2022) Dr. John Clauser was to present a seminar on climate models to the IMF on Thursday and now his talk has been summarily cancelled," the Co2 Coalition said in a statement. "According to an email he received last evening, the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, had read the flyer for John's July 25 zoom talk and summarily and immediately canceled the talk. Technically, it was 'postponed,'" the statement added.

 

Again, is it a matter of naiveté on your part that you would pretend that pressure to conform to the "consensus" scientists doesn't exist?

This article rather sums it up nicely in a single sentence.

The four types of climate denier, and why you should ignore them all

But the deniers are not all the same. They tend to fit into one of four different categories: the shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool.

Judgment Day:

The science is clear, the severity understood at the highest levels everywhere, and serious debates about what to do are turning into action. The deniers have nothing to contribute to this.

What is this?  Mob rule?  Blowing off contrary views ain't science.  It's mob rule.  And you're all for it!! 

What can be said to someone who believes either in mass conspiracy or mass hypnosis? The fact is that the climate change model has proven to be wildly successful. And your silly misrepresentation of Thomas Kuhn's work not worth responding to in detail. When Copernicus declard that the earth orbited around the sun, it met with lots of opposition from the old guard. As I pointed out earlier, Louis Agassiz, a justly eminent scientist, rejected the theory of evolution. It's not a matter of groupthink when a new theory enjoys massive confirmatory success and the opposition to it repeatedly comes up empty.