Jump to content
drumbo

Are most climate scientists alarmists?

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, joigus said:

What the hell is that? How old are you?

I shouldn't have said this, and I apologize. But I'm starting to think that either you're not taking the discussion seriously or haven't examined your own arguments in earnest. Plus you're not listening. 

Non sequitur is a very common fallacy. You should be aware of it.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Because land is evenly distributed on the globe? And arable land is all that matters?

 

+1. I hadn't even noticed that.

Share this post


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

I shouldn't have said this, and I apologize.

don't worry, if we have learnt anything from the tinternet, it's that there is no devastating argument; when we don't want to agree...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

don't worry, if we have learnt anything from the tinternet, it's that there is no devastating argument; when we don't want to agree...

LOL. You may be right. Another thing we've learnt (or learnt to suspect) is that we could be arguing with a 12-yo. It's not so easy to tell. And there I go again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, joigus said:

LOL. You may be right. Another thing we've learnt (or learnt to suspect) is that we could be arguing with a 12-yo.

!

Moderator Note

Careful, we don't disparage whole groups here. One of our current admins joined when he was 11. Not sure how many degrees he has presently, but I don't think he's old enough to drink legally.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a child is correct, who am I to argue...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:
!

Moderator Note

Careful, we don't disparage whole groups here. One of our current admins joined when he was 11. Not sure how many degrees he has presently, but I don't think he's old enough to drink legally.

 

+1. In my defense I have to say my observation could be read both ways. Some 11 y.o.'s can be quite amazing, and you could be forgiven for believing they're adults. One of my younger students, exactly 11, once asked me this:

Teacher, how did people come up with language back at the time there was no one around who could speak?

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If a child is correct, who am I to argue...

Precisely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, joigus said:

Some 11 y.o.'s can be quite amazing, and you could be forgiven for believing they're adults.

I don't think many knew Cap'n Refsmmat was THAT young. He seemed more like a know-it-all high school kid or college freshman. He must be around 26, now that I do the math.

Not sure he's involved in climate science though, otherwise he'd have this whole warming thing handled, I'm sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sure the Captain isn't just lying about his age ?
I tell people I'm 35 years old, all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MigL said:

You sure the Captain isn't just lying about his age ?
I tell people I'm 35 years old, all the time.

That's only because the cops keep asking if you are old enough to smoke.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, MigL said:

You sure the Captain isn't just lying about his age ?
I tell people I'm 35 years old, all the time.

@rjbeery must have been time-dilating you:

clint-eastwood.jpeg?resize=450,270&ssl=1

Share this post


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

+1.

They "look similar" (to me) ergo they "can adapt" (in unspecified amount of time.)

If you drop an elephant from an airplane, maybe it can evolve flight by becoming Dumbo.

The latter was an hyperbole, meant only to illustrate the blatant flaw in an argument. Don't misinterpret my words again, please.

The evidence that elk could live a warm climate is overwhelming. In 1913, 83 elk from Yellowstone were transplanted in Arizona near Chevelon Lake in the Arizona White Mountains region. Even with harvesting via licensed hunting, today the Arizona elk population has grown to about 35,000. See the picture below of the western hemisphere range for elk.

elkhabitat.jpg

Edited by drumbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, drumbo said:

The evidence that elk could live a warm climate is overwhelming. In 1913, 83 elk from Yellowstone were transplanted in Arizona near Chevelon Lake in the Arizona White Mountains region. Even with harvesting via licensed hunting, today the Arizona elk population has grown to about 35,000. See the picture below of the western hemisphere range for elk.

 

  

On 5/28/2020 at 2:56 AM, drumbo said:

Why are you concerned with Elk?

Dunno. Why are you?

(now)

Edited by joigus
addition

Share this post


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

as we have already observed that humans die when it gets hotter

And how many humans will die when we slash energy consumption by prematurely moving away from fossil fuels before suitable replacements exist? Where do you think the energy to create the civilization around you comes from?

12 hours ago, swansont said:

If they conclude that the temperature will go up by XºC over some span of time, under some set of conditions, that is neither an affirmative nor pessimistic bias. And, as scientists have discussed positive impacts, your argument to the contrary is moot.

It is not moot if those scientists display their bias by unnecessarily stoking fear and focusing on potential negative outcomes. I am not sure if we should call them scientists either. Scientists are supposed to test if the hypotheses they have developed actually work. Have you seen some of the mathematical/statistical models these researchers use? Convoluted, ridiculous and utterly useless. Most of the models that climate scientists develop are so useless that they make Neil Ferguson's epidemiological models look good in comparison. Make no mistake, the goal with these convoluted models is to intimidate people into submission; "We've done the math. You're just too dumb to understand it. Shut up and trust the experts, us." Luckily I have a masters in applied math so I can tell when math is used in a BS fashion. Descartes said it best when he said: "Then as to the Analysis of the ancients and the Algebra of the moderns, besides that they embrace only matters highly abstract, and, to appearance, of no use, the former is so restricted to the consideration of figures, that it can exercise the Understanding only on condition of greatly fatiguing the Imagination; and, in the latter, there is so complete a subjection to certain rules and formulas, that there results an art full of confusion and obscurity calculated to embarrass."

22 minutes ago, joigus said:

  

Dunno. Why are you? 

You brought up elk. I am addressing what you said. It's OK to be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, drumbo said:

 

You brought up elk. I am addressing what you said. It's OK to be wrong.

I meant moose. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, drumbo said:

And how many humans will die when we slash energy consumption by prematurely moving away from fossil fuels before suitable replacements exist? Where do you think the energy to create the civilization around you comes from?

Present evidence that this is happening, or it’s a reasonable expectation. 

 

12 minutes ago, drumbo said:

It is not moot if those scientists display their bias by unnecessarily stoking fear and focusing on potential negative outcomes.

You claimed they were “completely ignoring possible benefits” and I debunked that. If they feel that the negatives outweigh the positives, how can you be sure this isn’t a conclusion?

How about presenting evidence, instead of moving the goalposts.

12 minutes ago, drumbo said:

I am not sure if we should call them scientists either. Scientists are supposed to test if the hypotheses they have developed actually work. Have you seen some of the mathematical/statistical models these researchers use? Convoluted, ridiculous and utterly useless.

Disparagement and assertion. No science.

12 minutes ago, drumbo said:

Most of the models that climate scientists develop are so useless that they make Neil Ferguson's epidemiological models look good in comparison. Make no mistake, the goal with these convoluted models is to intimidate people into submission; "We've done the math. You're just too dumb to understand it. Shut up and trust the experts, us." Luckily I have a masters in applied math so I can tell when math is used in a BS fashion.

A pity you won’t apply your education here.

 

1 hour ago, drumbo said:

The evidence that elk could live a warm climate is overwhelming. In 1913, 83 elk from Yellowstone were transplanted in Arizona near Chevelon Lake in the Arizona White Mountains region. Even with harvesting via licensed hunting, today the Arizona elk population has grown to about 35,000. See the picture below of the western hemisphere range for elk.

elkhabitat.jpg

How much warmer is it up in those mountains?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, drumbo said:

Most of the models that climate scientists develop are so useless that they make Neil Ferguson's epidemiological models look good in comparison.

Climate prediction is by no means the same as weather forecasting. Weather forecasting is noise with respect to climate change (quite more predictable.) You're out of your depth here.

 

35 minutes ago, drumbo said:

Luckily I have a masters in applied math so I can tell when math is used in a BS fashion.

It's about measurements, not just maths: glaciers retreat, ice cores, temperature gradients, ice sheet width, evaporation rates, salinity. Plus same ideas have been tested with Mars as prediction of long term climate and they work. Correlations check for billions of years.

I've studied probably a thousandfold more maths than you and it's not the maths that's convinced me. It's in the experiments.

</sarcasm>

Although I'm very interested in you BS-checking algorithm.

And when you're finished with the moose, let's go to cyanobacteria, lichens, fungi. There are an estimated 8.7 million biological species in total. This can be a loooong discussion.

</sarcasm>

Ta-ra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For climate scientists, finding the inescapable conclusions of their studies that global warming and the changes that will bring will be global, damaging, costly and effectively irreversible, to fail to raise alarms would be unprofessional and unethical. Whether commissioned by Conservative or by Progressive leaning governments the conclusions have not changed - not even the studies called for because they didn't like what the other studies said. This is evidence to my mind that science is not blindly following pre-determined conclusions or the bidding of political masters or involved in global conspiracies.

Drumbo, your casually tossed out allegations that they are incompetent or driven by nefarious motives -

2 hours ago, drumbo said:

Most of the models that climate scientists develop are so useless that they make Neil Ferguson's epidemiological models look good in comparison. Make no mistake, the goal with these convoluted models is to intimidate people into submission

are profoundly insulting and slanderous besides being wrong. But not unusual amongst the climate science deniers of my experience. No point in further discussion. Goodbye Drumbo.

Share this post


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

You sure the Captain isn't just lying about his age ?
I tell people I'm 35 years old, all the time.

Yeah but you also think you invented standing in line.

😅

Edited by zapatos

Share this post


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

You sure the Captain isn't just lying about his age ?
I tell people I'm 35 years old, all the time.

Having met him when he was too young to even share a beer with me many years ago, I assure you his age is no lie. 

Share this post


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

For climate scientists, finding the inescapable conclusions of their studies that global warming and the changes that will bring will be global, damaging, costly and effectively irreversible, to fail to raise alarms would be unprofessional and unethical. Whether commissioned by Conservative or by Progressive leaning governments the conclusions have not changed - not even the studies called for because they didn't like what the other studies said. This is evidence to my mind that science is not blindly following pre-determined conclusions or the bidding of political masters or involved in global conspiracies.

Drumbo, your casually tossed out allegations that they are incompetent or driven by nefarious motives -

are profoundly insulting and slanderous besides being wrong. But not unusual amongst the climate science deniers of my experience. No point in further discussion. Goodbye Drumbo.

I see that I struck so telling a blow, that not only are you running away with your tail between your legs, you also went back through this thread to downvote 5 of my replies. Many of which, ostensibly, you left untouched earlier. Did their contents change? I will reply later with a thorough explanation of why most of the major climate models in use today are practically useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Kindly lay off the ad hominems. Note that Ken Fabian did not downvote your posts; other folks did it (not that it matters).

 

Share this post


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

I see that I struck so telling a blow, that not only are you running away with your tail between your legs, you also went back through this thread to downvote 5 of my replies. Many of which, ostensibly, you left untouched earlier. Did their contents change? I will reply later with a thorough explanation of why most of the major climate models in use today are practically useless.

The ones I downvoted were untouched earlier because I only recently got around to reading them. I think you owe Ken Fabian an apology for blaming him for what I did.

Edited by zapatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, drumbo said:

And how many humans will die when we slash energy consumption by prematurely moving away from fossil fuels before suitable replacements exist?

What evidence do you have that any such slashing of energy consumption will happen?

What evidence do you have for the numbers of deaths that this will cause?

Share this post


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

And how many humans will die when we slash energy consumption by prematurely moving away from fossil fuels before suitable replacements exist? Where do you think the energy to create the civilization around you comes from?

Pematurely is the wrong word.
There is no shortage of (sustainable) energy, just a vast shortage of the political will to use it.

Like some many socially worthwhile changes (e g water supply) it is just a question of engineering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, joigus said:

I meant moose. Sorry.

</sarcasm>

I meant moose. Sorry.

</sarcasm>

There. I think it's clearer now. Carry on.

The elk bit was also sarcasm, but as you are incapable of distinguishing climate prediction from weather forecasting, maths from experiments and who knows what more, I'm giving you some visual help. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.