Jump to content
Eise

Climate science was wrong!

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

I have actually read a report that audits and compares the Australian ACORN 1 and 2 data sets and comes out with similar results to A. Parker above (not by a scientist). It stated that 12 data locations were removed from ACORN 2, due to them being 'heat islands', although the rising trend in ACORN 2 is severely reduced when the data from those 12 locations is included in the data set.

I think science has become too politicized to be able to provide the correct results without adequate quality assurance procedures or regular auditing by technical people who know what they are doing.

That's not an artifact of politicisation - that's just science.

I used to work in a medical research facility and auditors would come in and find discrepancies all the time. Most of the time they were small, but occasionally larger issues were found requiring data to be re-analysed and changes in practice implemented.

But strangely no one ever questions medical science to the extent they question climate science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2019 at 9:06 AM, Eise said:

No, I am not very optimistic.

Have a look here https://www.gapminder.org/

Info about Gapminder at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gapminder_Foundation

It looks to me a reliable source of information. About a wide scope of interests influencing the global pessimistic/optimistic view of the world.

It is also a good self test  for the one who says that:

On 11/20/2019 at 5:39 AM, MigL said:

you win an argument ( or convince someone to your point-of-view ), by reason and evidence

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-reading the NYT article in the OP reminds me that different folks mean different things when the talk of temperature degrees.

The NYT figures were in Farenheit.

In many other parts of the world they will be in Centigrade.

And of course, the non technical press may well not bother with the units depending upon their angle.

So full marks to the NYT for this at least.

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Prometheus said:

But strangely no one ever questions medical science to the extent they question climate science.

Oh, it is questioned for sure, though much of it is within the scientific communities. Many are aware that when it comes to medicine we are often using sledgehammers to address very delicate questions. Reasons range from knowledge gaps to technical challenges. However, what trickles out usually lacks nuance with sometimes fatal consequences. The thing is that if folks overestimate the things we understand it creates unfounded trust, but realistically there is often not a lot of alternatives. On the other hand skeptics may just abandon the little we actually know and go full crazy (such as anti-vaccination movements). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Oh, it is questioned for sure, though much of it is within the scientific communities...

That's as it should be. 

I was referring to they lay community - but now realise i forget about anti-vaxxers and isn't there some kind of HIV/AIDs conspiracy movement? I stand corrected.

As for the trust issue - there are not many alternatives are there? If i go to a doctor, i might read a little around an illness, maybe get a second opinion, but at some point i'm just going to have to trust someone. Same when i get a car fixed, i could tinker a little, but a mechanic knows far more than me. I guess it's comes down to public engagement and showing people why scientists can be trusted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The community we choose have auditors - thats our political landscape - our hope is, they can be trusted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in the science that states the planet is warming, and warming faster then any natural cycle of warming in the past. I do have issues with those corporations who seem to be looking very hard at finding a way to profit from this.

I mean, this issue is very serious. In the past, when faced with a serious crisis-though not as bad as this- the 'fix' was not monetized. It may be now, but back when vaccines were first introduced to combat issues like polio, MMR, and other serious public health threats, didn't the government(s) just do what was necessary?

They paid/subsidized  the vaccines and instituted a nation wide program of vaccination at no cost, or very low cost, to the recipient.

So why do we not have a similar plan now? 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

And there is stuff like this below, how should one respond to this? (from another forum----please remove if not allowed)

Quote

Since the other Global Warming thread is titled with "denials and crap", I decided to post a newer thread with a more accurate title naming the Manmade Global Warming hoax a fraud (because it is). After all, this is the SCIENCE forum at ********, and science does not support manmade global climate change or manmade global warming. 

The two camps on this subject are as divided as that between Creationists and Evolutionists. The non-scientific camp believes that Man is causing global climate change by burning fossil fuels and dumping CO2 into the atmosphere which is turn is allegedly creating greenhouse gases which will heat up the earth and burn us all alive (well, not exactly, but to hear them speak you might think that).

The scientific camp who is actually taking time to investigate the science and verifying the data being used to make the ridiculous claims are exposing the true purpose of the Manmade Global Warming scam, and that is to make money on remediation and emissions control technology and devices.

This topic is important because AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has spawned such things as the Toyota Prius, has closed coal plants across the southeast and midwest, and allowed the creation of "currency" known as Carbon Credits:
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not people seek to profit while solving problems is irrelevant to the validity or reality of the problem being solved, or it’s cause. The person is simply lying and misrepresenting the scientific stance, which I suspect is already obvious to anyone reading. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iNow said:

I suspect is already obvious to anyone reading. 

It trivially should be. But with sufficient folks saying that, it becomes a seed of doubt. Then add powerful voices in media and politics who leverage the doubt and then we are where we are now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It trivially should be. But with sufficient folks saying that, it becomes a seed of doubt. Then add powerful voices in media and politics who leverage the doubt and then we are where we are now. 

That’s what I get for trying an optimistic post. Won’t let it happen again. 
 

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iNow said:

Whether or not people seek to profit while solving problems is irrelevant to the validity or reality of the problem being solved, or it’s cause. The person is simply lying and misrepresenting the scientific stance, which I suspect is already obvious to anyone reading. 

 

48 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It trivially should be. But with sufficient folks saying that, it becomes a seed of doubt. Then add powerful voices in media and politics who leverage the doubt and then we are where we are now. 

yes, though  i was looking for how either of you would counter this type of thing? what would your opening salvo be?

thanks

<< it would be an interesting read if you could reply to him directly.  >>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, YJ02 said:

I mean, this issue is very serious. In the past, when faced with a serious crisis-though not as bad as this- the 'fix' was not monetized. It may be now, but back when vaccines were first introduced to combat issues like polio, MMR, and other serious public health threats, didn't the government(s) just do what was necessary?

They paid/subsidized  the vaccines and instituted a nation wide program of vaccination at no cost, or very low cost, to the recipient.

So why do we not have a similar plan now? 

Vaccines when they were the first time introduced did not have anti-vaccines opposition lobby who attacked idea of using them. And vaccines were cheap to make and gave instant results (politicians could mention it on successful actions list to show voters what they did good to community).

Fight with AGW is fight with poweful fossil fuels lobby (including millions of workers, engineers, miners and their families) who want to sustain status quo as it brings them steady pofits.

It is similar to fight with weapon lobby..

One has to buy back their businesses, change profile of company, persuade and teach crew new jobs so they won't protest against shutting down coalmines, oil raphineries and similar obsolete factories..

So far the all politicians actions were to make as hard as possible to work in fossil fuel business... co2 contracts are increasing costs of operations of heavy industry, to make harder to operate. It is wrong unconstructive way..

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion on the situation is very good illustrated by this cartoon.

image.thumb.png.21f6c5bee6dc2e5fda25885003b13229.png

I think you will be able to translate the French words (If a translation is needed...)

Edited by Eise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sensei said:

Vaccines when they were the first time introduced did not have anti-vaccines opposition lobby who attacked idea of using them. And vaccines were cheap to make and gave instant results (politicians could mention it on successful actions list to show voters what they did good to community).

What I've learned from history makes me think that this is not true, regarding the opposition. There is always somebody opposed.

It was probably less vocal and perhaps less organized, but I have no doubt that there was opposition. But back then people tended to trust science more than they do today, and I'm not sure there was a large industry profiting from all of the people dying that was going to be lining up against vaccination. Probably because virtually everyone was affected in some way. Even if there was some "Big Death" consortium that loved the fact that business was booming, they weren't pushing opposition the way that the fossil fuel industry backs opposition to climate change.

Perhaps because the people dying weren't customers that were feeding the profit. The tobacco industry was/is killing their customers, but they get a few decades of profit from them first. Same for fossil fuels. An eight-year-old dying from one of these diseases, not so much.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, iNow said:

I’d tell him that I’d agree with him, but then we’d both be wrong. 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

:) :)

2 hours ago, Eise said:

My opinion on the situation is very good illustrated by this cartoon.

image.thumb.png.21f6c5bee6dc2e5fda25885003b13229.png

I think you will be able to translate the French words (If a translation is needed...)

from the pictures i interpret it as the doubt and naysayer crowd increasingly having less and less (evidence) to stand on?

10 hours ago, Sensei said:

So far the all politicians actions were to make as hard as possible to work in fossil fuel business... co2 contracts are increasing costs of operations of heavy industry, to make harder to operate. It is wrong unconstructive way..

So, are you saying that there should be no monetary involvement, either punitive or supportive?

I would agree, I think if there was EVER a cause in need of government (or a collection of govt's) to take a complete lead in taking action, this is it.

Like for them to nationalize ("globalize?) the technology needed that companies have and then,maybe, pay them later. (???)

I don't think we can spend our way out of this situation--and corporations will always find a way around fines, fees and taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

I don't think we can spend our way out of this situation--and corporations will always find a way around fines, fees and taxes.

thats exactly whats needed.

we can't pray our way out of this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, swansont said:

It was probably less vocal and perhaps less organized, but I have no doubt that there was opposition.

True. There might be some minor opposition from uneducated individuals. But I said lobby i.e. organized group of people persuading and bribering politicians to their ideas typically to keep status quo, resisting changes which could cost them a lot of money and eventually leading to bankruptcy of their businesses. The only industry which could lobby against vaccines was organizing funerals.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sensei said:

True. There might be some minor opposition from uneducated individuals. But I said lobby i.e. organized group of people persuading and bribering politicians to their ideas typically to keep status quo, resisting changes which could cost them a lot of money and eventually leading to bankruptcy of their businesses. The only industry which could lobby against vaccines was organizing funerals.

Point taken, but people can lobby even if they aren't part of industry. The US went through prohibition because of such lobbying, so it's not hard for me to imagine a similar reaction. Some of the same people probably lobbied against fluoridation of drinking water, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, YJ02 said:

I don't think we can spend our way out of this situation--and corporations will always find a way around fines, fees and taxes.

If corporations can always find their way around fines, fees, taxes and regulations then we have a profoundly serious problem with governance that needs addressing - and not only for climate policy reasons. Even the presumption that governments are incapable of dealing with the avoidance of accountability by corporations is an issue that needs addressing - so it does not persist as the excuse for politicians to fail to act.

It raises the issues around the role of journalism and news media as actively partisan players - a role that the essential amorality of a business model based around getting paid to influence the choices people make, both their purchasing choices and their votes, through advertising, PR and editorial opinion makes into a small step to take. Isn't the USA's constitutional protections for news outlets the enshrined right of media owners to use newspapers as a means to do just that, ie to engage in partisan politics? Whilst there are legal remedies for people being slandered (if you can afford it) the right for the voting public to know the truth looks more like a marketing slogan than a journalistic ethic.

I think the capacity for good governance to address the climate issue is very much dependent on where the balance between Integrity vs Corruption sits; if corporations or other powerful vested interests can consistently game the system to prevent governments from acting effectively in the face of such a grave threat to continuing prosperity then it is easy to feel pessimistic. However, I think the lengths the opponents of strong policy go to to reinforce the public's sense of helplessness and pointlessness suggests that when push comes to shove they know governments do have sufficient power to act.

Climate change is not the only issue where good governance matters, but I think it does make the significance of where governance sits on the Integrity vs Corruption spectrum stark and clear. If we cannot deal with climate change effectively we are in deep trouble We have codes of conduct bound by the rule of law because humans will choose their own interests first and will try to find ways around having to be responsible and accountable (and obey laws, pay fines, fees and taxes); governance that seeks to enable "free choice" about matters of responsibility and ethics is not good governance as I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During WWII, the US government reached out to US automakers asking if any could help build planes for the war effort. One raised their hand and said, “we built 2 last year.” The government said, “we need 300,000.” Within 2-3 years, the auto industry has built 300,000 planes and we won the war.

It’s time we declare war now on atmospheric cancer and set these types of audacious goals toward building clean energy like our grandparents did for building war planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

If corporations can always find their way around fines, fees, taxes

Tax, fine, fee on corporation, especially in monopolistic or oligopolistic environment, is almost always passed on customers of what they sell to people. So direct tax on corporation is actually indirect tax on ordinary people who are end users of the product. CO2 emission contracts in situation where significant amount of energy is fossil fuel based, and energy users are unable to change its source, will end up in increased price of energy for domestic and business uses (perhaps pushing them into troubles with lower competitiveness of their products which have nothing to do with fossil fuels industry!), completely not addressing CO2 emission issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Tax, fine, fee on corporation, especially in monopolistic or oligopolistic environment, is almost always passed on customers of what they sell to people. So direct tax on corporation is actually indirect tax on ordinary people who are end users of the product. CO2 emission contracts in situation where significant amount of energy is fossil fuel based, and energy users are unable to change its source, will end up in increased price of energy for domestic and business uses (perhaps pushing them into troubles with lower competitiveness of their products which have nothing to do with fossil fuels industry!), completely not addressing CO2 emission issue.

I disagree - the presence of taxes on carbon changes the investment decisions corporations make, thus the emissions of the products and services they offer and that customers buy. It should do so in ways that apply across whole economies. In any case we are talking about real and significant costs from emissions - even if they are difficult to quantify; failure to apply any accountability for emissions ultimately adds costs to ordinary people, just indirectly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ken Fabian

..yet another unknown is what governments will do with this way gathered money from CO2 emission taxes... will they by themselves build powerful solar power plants, solar furnaces, etc. competing with (perhaps state owned) traditional coal power plants, or "as always" waste money on something unrelated, or give away money to people to buy their votes.. Budget deficit, economic slowdown, worldwide collapse of economics, sooner or later will happen, and I am afraid that they will simply waste this way gathered money..

History learns that money from targeted taxes are later abused and misused.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

If corporations can always find their way around fines, fees, taxes and regulations then we have a profoundly serious problem with governance that needs addressing - and not only for climate policy reasons. Even the presumption that governments are incapable of dealing with the avoidance of accountability by corporations is an issue that needs addressing - so it does not persist as the excuse for politicians to fail to act.

It raises the issues around the role of journalism and news media as actively partisan players - a role that the essential amorality of a business model based around getting paid to influence the choices people make, both their purchasing choices and their votes, through advertising, PR and editorial opinion makes into a small step to take. Isn't the USA's constitutional protections for news outlets the enshrined right of media owners to use newspapers as a means to do just that, ie to engage in partisan politics? Whilst there are legal remedies for people being slandered (if you can afford it) the right for the voting public to know the truth looks more like a marketing slogan than a journalistic ethic.

I think the capacity for good governance to address the climate issue is very much dependent on where the balance between Integrity vs Corruption sits; if corporations or other powerful vested interests can consistently game the system to prevent governments from acting effectively in the face of such a grave threat to continuing prosperity then it is easy to feel pessimistic. However, I think the lengths the opponents of strong policy go to to reinforce the public's sense of helplessness and pointlessness suggests that when push comes to shove they know governments do have sufficient power to act.

Climate change is not the only issue where good governance matters, but I think it does make the significance of where governance sits on the Integrity vs Corruption spectrum stark and clear. If we cannot deal with climate change effectively we are in deep trouble We have codes of conduct bound by the rule of law because humans will choose their own interests first and will try to find ways around having to be responsible and accountable (and obey laws, pay fines, fees and taxes); governance that seeks to enable "free choice" about matters of responsibility and ethics is not good governance as I see it.

I completely agree with you.

16 hours ago, dimreepr said:

thats exactly whats needed.

we can't pray our way out of this situation.

let me refine that a  bit to ->>>>  I don't think we can spend our way out of this with government waiting on private corporations to make the right choice for our continued existence instead of making the right choice for their profit and loss statements and reports to shareholders.

-----------------------------------       ----------------------------------------       --------------------------------------

Meanwhile, to the extent that TIME magazine matters and to whom it matters to. Did TIME make the wrong choice for person of the year by selecting Thunberg-the talker, over Vague,- the actual scientist with a process that will be very impactful on the environment?

from: https://100percentfedup.com/time-chooses-angry-teen-climate-actress-for-person-of-the-year-overlooks-college-student-who-discovered-way-for-bacteria-to-eat-plastic/

Quote

TIME Chooses Angry Teen Climate Actress For “Person Of The Year” Overlooks College Student Who Discovered Way For Bacteria to Eat Plastic

 

Edited by YJ02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.