The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Not necessarily so.

 

CBS says that 15,000 scientists disagree. There's a big difference.

That's a confusing statement.

[boomerangutang]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Not necessarily so.

CBS says that 15,000 scientists disagree. There's a big difference.

I was going to comment on the post that RB is commenting on, because it's not clear.

 

poster jcsmith said 15,000 scientists disagree.  He didn't say what they disagree with.  RB took the wrong interpretation and ran with it.  But, of course, RB is wrong.   The gist of the article claims that 15,000 scientists AGREE that CC is a dire issue that should be addressed.

 

Here's the title of the article:  15,000 scientists issue dire warning that "time is running out" on climate change.

 

here's an excerpt:  "More than 15,000 scientists have now endorsed a "second notice" to the world, warning of the growing impact of climate change and the possibility of an extinction-level event in the near future."

[RickBradford]

Quote

I tried reading the article above.  Maybe I'm not adult enough, but I couldn't find any substance in it.  It was a lot of intellectual words - but to me signified nothing. 

 

From the article:

 

"There are a number of very prominent examples of the flouting of scientific norms within the climate community. It is not the sort of discussion that gets you onto Christmas Card lists, but it is easy to list leaders in the community who’ve decided that expected norms of behavior  don’t apply to them: Jacobson, Mann, Gleick, Pachauri, Schmidt, Rahmstorf, Shukla, Jones, Trenberth ."

 

I would say that was fairly clear, of considerable substance, and not in the least intellectually challenging.

[boomerangutang]

3 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

"More than 15,000 scientists have now endorsed a "second notice" to the world, warning of the growing impact of climate change and the possibility of an extinction-level event in the near future."

I would take it a step further, and say; 'extinctions have been happening for decades, and are getting more dire.'

 

Or maybe the article is only referring to humans.   Humans are but one of millions of species on this planet.   Are humans so much more important than every other species?  If so, how much more?    

 

I take a world-view.  Religionists and others take a myopic human-centric view.  To me, humans are special for their craftiness, but there are thousands of species which are special in their own particular ways - which leave humans in the dust.    

 

 

[boomerangutang]

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

From the article:

"There are a number of very prominent examples of the flouting of scientific norms within the climate community. It is not the sort of discussion that gets you onto Christmas Card lists, but it is easy to list leaders in the community who’ve decided that expected norms of behavior  don’t apply to them: Jacobson, Mann, Gleick, Pachauri, Schmidt, Rahmstorf, Shukla, Jones, Trenberth ."

I would say that was fairly clear, of considerable substance, and not in the least intellectually challenging.

You make my point.  The writer is twisting himself into intellectual knots, and essentially saying blah blah blah.   What's his point?  

 

I'm a writer. One thing I endeavor to do, when I write, is make things clear.  Maybe it's too much to expect from other writers, but personally, I like to read things which make a point.  That's why I rarely read fiction, and prefer non-fiction.  

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

You make my point.  The writer is twisting himself into intellectual knots, and essentially saying blah blah blah.   What's his point?  

 

I'm a writer. One thing I endeavor to do, when I write, is make things clear.  Maybe it's too much to expect from other writers, but personally, I like to read things which make a point.  That's why I rarely read fiction, and prefer non-fiction.  

Excuse me, but if that paragraph is not clear to you, then I can't understand how you can consider yourself a writer.

 

He states, quite straightforwardly, that many of the most prominent figures in climate science are acting in bad faith and not following the scientific method honestly.

[USPatriot]

it is just one big scam of course carbon credits and taxes will fix a non problem.

[canuckamuck]

It is not such a difficult thing to headhunt people in a field who are the most likely to bend to an agenda for personal gain and then promote them to be leaders of their field. There are just as many scientists without conscience as there are other people without conscience, who will do whatever it takes to get one step higher.  All of the major climate change authorities are projects of the UN, NASA, NOAA or other major Institutions and foundations that are infested by socialists, liberals, and Marxists. You can have a thousand honest graduate students doing correct science but when the stats get manhandled by the agenda machine the results always comply with the politics funding the work.

Edited November 18, 2017 by canuckamuck

[craigt3365]

35 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 

From the article:

 

"There are a number of very prominent examples of the flouting of scientific norms within the climate community. It is not the sort of discussion that gets you onto Christmas Card lists, but it is easy to list leaders in the community who’ve decided that expected norms of behavior  don’t apply to them: Jacobson, Mann, Gleick, Pachauri, Schmidt, Rahmstorf, Shukla, Jones, Trenberth ."

 

I would say that was fairly clear, of considerable substance, and not in the least intellectually challenging.

What's not intellectually challenging is a signed letter by thousands of scientists saying climate change is real.  And a real problem.  Impossible to argue with them.  Though some try....perhaps these people are also members of the Flat Earth Society? LOL

[Grouse]

5 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

There is indeed too much bad reporting and unresearched commentary that is made worse by bad and sensationalist headlines. Online there is also the "click-bait" headline problem that are usually even more misleading.

It is across the whole spectrum though, not just climate "news".

(The Telegraph isn't tabloid yet is it?)

 

 

Sadly the Torygraph isn't what it used to be. The cryptic crossword is a shadow of its former self ?

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

What's not intellectually challenging is a signed letter by thousands of scientists saying climate change is real.  And a real problem.  Impossible to argue with them.  Though some try....perhaps these people are also members of the Flat Earth Society? LOL

Here's a quote;  ".....but it is easy to list leaders in the community who’ve decided that expected norms of behavior don’t apply to them:"

 

I think the writer skipped class the day the teacher taught about 'being clear.'

 

If that's the flagpole that deniers are rallying around, they're looking desperate.

[RickBradford]

8 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Here's a quote;  ".....but it is easy to list leaders in the community who’ve decided that expected norms of behavior don’t apply to them:"

 

I think the writer skipped class the day the teacher taught about 'being clear.'

That sentence is written at about a secondary school comprehension level. I expect that even your hero, Donald Trump, could extract the meaning from it without effort.

 

The problem is not with the writer's clarity; it lies elsewhere.

 

 

[boomerangutang]

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

That sentence is written at about a secondary school comprehension level. I expect that even your hero, Donald Trump, could extract the meaning from it without effort.

The problem is not with the writer's clarity; it lies elsewhere.

You mean anti-science Trump?  Mr. Covfefe?   Is he one of your heroes because he also thinks GW is a hoax designed by the Chinese to ply carbon taxes from everyone?

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, partington said:

This is because you don't understand how science is communicated, and because you are (accidentally) trying to imply that 97% of scientists means all scientists and not just scientists working in geophysics, climatology and so on

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Of course with climate change the scientists they are talking about are not research orthodontists.

I'M not "accidentally" implying anything.

Whenever the magic number of 97% comes up it is of "SCIENTISTS", NOT a qualified category. THAT is the implication, which is that ALL scientists support man made C C, which is a nonsense.

It is also UNSCIENTIFIC as it's not based in facts. 

There must be hundreds of thousands of papers written every year by said "geophysics, climatology and so on" scientists all around the world, and it would be clearly EXTREMELY DIFFICULT for any person to read every one of them and calculate the %. Perhaps someone googled "scientists that support man made C C" and google came up with the number 5555555555555555555555555555555555.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

It is not such a difficult thing to headhunt people in a field who are the most likely to bend to an agenda for personal gain and then promote them to be leaders of their field. There are just as many scientists without conscience as there are other people without conscience, who will do whatever it takes to get one step higher.  All of the major climate change authorities are projects of the UN, NASA, NOAA or other major Institutions and foundations that are infested by socialists, liberals, and Marxists. You can have a thousand honest graduate students doing correct science but when the stats get manhandled by the agenda machine the results always comply with the politics funding the work.

There isn't an emoticon for "I like that a million times", but if there were, I'd have used it.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

What's not intellectually challenging is a signed letter by thousands of scientists saying climate change is real.  And a real problem.  Impossible to argue with them.  Though some try....perhaps these people are also members of the Flat Earth Society? LOL

LOL. No serious person denies C C. Happened ever since the earth formed from a gas cloud.

I agree with thousands of scientists saying C C is real. The thing I disagree with is that mankind can ever manipulate the climate in a beneficial way. Even if they extract and sequester CO2 till it is the same as in 1900, there will still be just as many hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, plagues, and species extinctions as at present.

The REAL reason humans are at risk of extinction ( the planet will carry on regardless without a single human being on it's surface ), is self caused- overpopulation. Without recognising that the problem is our inability to restrict our breeding, and returning the population level to that of 1900, nothing will change, regardless of CO2 ppm in the atmosphere, and continuing to ignore it, as every government on the planet is doing, nullifies any action taken to resolve the CO2 level.

[pkspeaker]

I don't believe in 'overpopulation' because you could have twice the current population of the world and twice as good land management.  I'm from Long Beach near LA, the entire Bangkok would fit between LA & Long Beach and not even stretch into Santa Monica.. and Bangkok is pretty sprawled, look at Hong Kong and how many people live in it, you can build UP like they do here in Bangkok and fit more people in a small area and then build subways all over the place, it's easier to get around.  In America they waste alot of land so they can build these suburban houses all over the place and then the only transportation is every one has to have their own car.  They could take the entire Southern California population and make LA & SD like Hong Kong and then there would be all this empty space for agriculture or even a nature reserve..  People can live much closer together than they do now.  Obviously in America they feel that they still have enough empty space so they can keep sprawling all over the place..  

Edited November 18, 2017 by pkspeaker

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

It is not such a difficult thing to headhunt people in a field who are the most likely to bend to an agenda for personal gain and then promote them to be leaders of their field. There are just as many scientists without conscience as there are other people without conscience, who will do whatever it takes to get one step higher.  All of the major climate change authorities are projects of the UN, NASA, NOAA or other major Institutions and foundations that are infested by socialists, liberals, and Marxists. You can have a thousand honest graduate students doing correct science but when the stats get manhandled by the agenda machine the results always comply with the politics funding the work.

Translation: You reject any science you don't like because you didn't do the analysis yourself, and you don't trust people who tell you things you don't want to believe.

[canuckamuck]

17 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Translation: You reject any science you don't like because you didn't do the analysis yourself, and you don't trust people who tell you things you don't want to believe.

Please break down how you got to that conclusion based on what I wrote.

[Andaman Al]

41 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

I don't believe in 'overpopulation' because you could have twice the current population of the world and twice as good land management.  I'm from Long Beach near LA, the entire Bangkok would fit between LA & Long Beach and not even stretch into Santa Monica.. and Bangkok is pretty sprawled, look at Hong Kong and how many people live in it, you can build UP like they do here in Bangkok and fit more people in a small area and then build subways all over the place, it's easier to get around.  In America they waste alot of land so they can build these suburban houses all over the place and then the only transportation is every one has to have their own car.  They could take the entire Southern California population and make LA & SD like Hong Kong and then there would be all this empty space for agriculture or even a nature reserve..  People can live much closer together than they do now.  Obviously in America they feel that they still have enough empty space so they can keep sprawling all over the place..  

And how will you feed them and employ them? There is plenty of land for physical bodies to occupy. Fresh water is already at a premium unbeknown to most of the world. There are far bigger problems associated with increased population than accommodation. 

[heybruce]

13 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Please break down how you got to that conclusion based on what I wrote.

You posted:

 

" All of the major climate change authorities are projects of the UN, NASA, NOAA or other major Institutions and foundations that are infested by socialists, liberals, and Marxists. "

 

Do you agree with the conclusions of these major institutions?  If not, why not?  Do you have evidence that their political leanings influence their conclusions?

 

This is an aside, but "socialists, liberals, and Marxists" in NASA?  Please provide evidence of this.

[canuckamuck]

Of course they are there, universities have been churning out left wing acolytes for decades now. It is no secret that an important element to fast career path is to be as political correct and progressive as humanly possible.  

That being said I am not about to do a census of NASA. You will likely find some conservatives in the hard science areas, but I can assure you that the more opinion driven and political areas of study like climate are staffed by fully triggered SJW's. Those under the age of 60 at least.

[heybruce]

48 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Of course they are there, universities have been churning out left wing acolytes for decades now. It is no secret that an important element to fast career path is to be as political correct and progressive as humanly possible.  

That being said I am not about to do a census of NASA. You will likely find some conservatives in the hard science areas, but I can assure you that the more opinion driven and political areas of study like climate are staffed by fully triggered SJW's. Those under the age of 60 at least.

In other words, you have no evidence for your claim, you just have preconceived notions and biases.  It's something you want to believe; just as you want to disbelieve climate science. 

 

The Economist news magazine, my primary source of news (but not my only source), accepts human driven global warming as accepted science.  It is a pro-free market publication that advocates minimal regulation and small government; it is definitely not Marxist.  However the editors accept data driven science and obvious conclusions.

 

SJW's?

[canuckamuck]

21 minutes ago, heybruce said:

In other words, you have no evidence for your claim, you just have preconceived notions and biases.  It's something you want to believe; just as you want to disbelieve climate science. 

 

The Economist news magazine, my primary source of news (but not my only source), accepts human driven global warming as accepted science.  It is a pro-free market publication that advocates minimal regulation and small government; it is definitely not Marxist.  However the editors accept data driven science and obvious conclusions.

 

SJW's?

From Wikipedia:

Quote

The Economist takes an editorial stance of classical and economic liberalism that supports free trade, globalisation, free immigration, and cultural liberalism (such as supporting legal recognition for same-sex marriage or drug liberalisation).^[2] The publication has described itself as "...a product of the Caledonian liberalism of Adam Smith and David Hume".^[15] It targets highly educated, cultured readers and claims an audience containing many influential executives and policy-makers.^[16] The publication's CEO described this recent global change, which was first noticed in the 1990s and accelerated in the beginning of the 21st century, as a "new age of Mass Intelligence".^[17][18]

 

 

[boomerangutang]

Canuckamuck: 
"All of the major climate change authorities are projects of the UN, NASA, NOAA or other major Institutions and foundations that are infested by socialists, liberals, and Marxists."

is that a bad joke?  You can't refute the science, so you make up labels for the scientists, and attack that?  Scraping the barrel, my fellow Chiang Raiian.   

 

The inventor of the transistor was a white-supremacist. Are we supposed to disdain anything with a transistor in it, because of that factoid? 

[boomerangutang]

3 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

I don't believe in 'overpopulation' because you could have twice the current population of the world and twice as good land management.  I'm from Long Beach near LA, the entire Bangkok would fit between LA & Long Beach and not even stretch into Santa Monica.. and Bangkok is pretty sprawled, look at Hong Kong and how many people live in it, you can build UP like they do here in Bangkok and fit more people in a small area and then build subways all over the place, it's easier to get around.  In America they waste alot of land so they can build these suburban houses all over the place and then the only transportation is every one has to have their own car.  They could take the entire Southern California population and make LA & SD like Hong Kong and then there would be all this empty space for agriculture or even a nature reserve..  People can live much closer together than they do now.  Obviously in America they feel that they still have enough empty space so they can keep sprawling all over the place..  

Wow, we so disagree, I hardly know where to start.  Have you ever been to downtown Kowloon, HK?  Have you heard of migrants tumbling in to Grecian islands and southern Italy?  Have you heard of migrants risking their lives to get to Malaysia or Australia or the USA. 

 

They're not traveling as tourists, sipping mint juleps and playing shuffleboard.   They're fleeing overpopulated regions where there's not a vege garden for dozens of square miles.  In Beijing, the can be 40 young men hanging in a hotel-sized room with no running water, no kitchen, and the bathroom is a hole in the floor.

 

Overpopulation goes hand in hand with dearth of resources.  Same if you had a patch of garden and started with a male and female rat - and tossed in a bit of bread and water each day.  Within a short time, you wouldn't be able to see the dirt floor, and rats would be eating each other.

 

As for empty space:  sure, there are deserts and mountains and swamps.  You can be the first to reside there.  We'll see how well it works for you, and maybe we'll come and be your neighbors.

 

 

[canuckamuck]

19 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 

is that a bad joke?  You can't refute the science, so you make up labels for the scientists, and attack that?  Scraping the barrel, my fellow Chiang Raiian.   

 

The inventor of the transistor was a white-supremacist. Are we supposed to disdain anything with a transistor in it, because of that factoid? 

A transistor is a thing, apocalyptic climate change is propaganda. Most transistors today are made by non white supremacists.

Edited November 18, 2017 by canuckamuck

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Wow, we so disagree, I hardly know where to start.  Have you ever been to downtown Kowloon, HK?  Have you heard of migrants tumbling in to Grecian islands and southern Italy?  Have you heard of migrants risking their lives to get to Malaysia or Australia or the USA. 

That's not due overpopulation, it's because a) war people are looking for better life.

 

The Rohingyas have been fleeing the mass killings by the Myanmar Buddhist for years. Some of them did come to Thailand, which had camps to contain them. This lead to different kind of human trafficking issues. 

 

I believe the real reason for Myanmar army to occupy the Rohingyas land was the natural resources found there. 

 

Greed, not the overpopulation. The obvious reason it often is. 

[boomerangutang]

4 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Of course they are there, universities have been churning out left wing acolytes for decades now. It is no secret that an important element to fast career path is to be as political correct and progressive as humanly possible.  

That being said I am not about to do a census of NASA. You will likely find some conservatives in the hard science areas, but I can assure you that the more opinion driven and political areas of study like climate are staffed by fully triggered SJW's. Those under the age of 60 at least.

University graduates are overwhelmingly liberal because they're liberal.  Is there some unwritten rule that says there should be the same # of conservatives as liberals?   I'd guess that U's and college 'student bodies' are about 80% left leaning, with perhaps 10% non-committed.  Plus, people are more likely to lean liberal when young, and then get more cynical, safety/security-worried, and conservative as they get into their senior years.    

 

You're more likely to see a young couple traveling the world on a shoestring, perhaps volunteering for a do-good organization, espousing green values, .....than a retired elder couple.

 

If you're concerned that most people at NASA (or any other organization except NRA and KKK) are left-leaning, that's because they are.  Environmental husbandry is not just a lefty hippie concern - it's important for perhaps 80 to 90% of westerners.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

University graduates are overwhelmingly liberal because they're liberal.  Is there some unwritten rule that says there should be the same # of conservatives as liberals?   I'd guess that U's and college 'student bodies' are about 80% left leaning, with perhaps 10% non-committed.  Plus, people are more likely to lean liberal when young, and then get more cynical, safety/security-worried, and conservative as they get into their senior years.    

This is actually quite interesting. I'm far left when I talk with the people from USA. I'm also far right when I talk with the people from my European country. 

This has been the theme as long as I have remembered. 

The US left are not even close to the far right, what european people think of. 
 

What unites us is the liberal values. "Why should our country deny our rights to do what we individuals want". I thought the conservatives were supporting that very thought at some point?