• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

scym9v.jpg
 
My neighbor had a squirrel that would shake their screen door when it wanted food. It would take the food from her and climb up on a railing and sit there and eat it. Really cute.
 
TWDeac said:
So are global ocean levels not rising?
jB2acaA.png




12_15_seaLevel_left.gif
Click to expand...
Probably because we've observed temp increases for 250 years. But what does that have to do with massive disruptions to coastal living?

Right now the only claimed temp correlation that involves CO2 starts in ~1978. Most of that lower chart is therefore not even CO2 related. Going by that data we've seen about 130mm increase since 1978. A 10% effect from man made CO2 is theoretically basically a blip...13mm. It would not materially change a thing.

Notice the trend line is about the same the entire time...with and without a CO2 temp correlation. What does that tell you???

Also note the decrease in 2015-16 right when some of the ice measurements increased.

Also, as I've pointed out before, ocean level data like this with a single number (like those single earth temps for X year) are also based on a model. They are collecting data points all over the place...with ocean levels increase some places and others decreasing others. With different times of day...distances from the moon...where the tides might vary 40 feet from high to low tide. They then ARBITRARILY combine them. There is no way to validate or correct it. So there is a lot of uncertainty in these numbers, which as you can see isn't even noted and part of the issue that birdman brings up about science communication. As long as most of the data collection is constant, then the relative effect is probably true but....who knows if the magnitude is anywhere near accurate.
 
Last edited:
birdman said:
I am not bugging one fucking milimeter on the reality of a biodiversity crisis. It is real and it will undoubtedly be a massive problem for humanity. It's been an interesting conversation up to that point.
Click to expand...
The biodiversity "crisis" is over hundreds of years, is likely due to man just existing on the planet, and has zippo to do with CO2. Changing our CO2 habits will have zero effect. That's just more sensationalism and the kind of extremism that is a huge part of the problem. Yeah, it was actually a productive conversation until you went off the cliff.
 
pourdeac said:
LOL......believing science has no equivalencies to religion is just part of the science religion.
Click to expand...

I might disagree with you when it comes to climate change, but you're absolutely spot on with this comment. Many dogmatic scientists, and science groupies, have made a sort of religion of it.
 
here's TED's take on the so-called "ban" lulz

The debate about Rupert Sheldrake’s talk

Posted by: TED Staff March 19, 2013 at 12:01 pm EST

At TEDxWhitechapel on January 13, 2013, Rupert Sheldrake gave a provocative talk in which he suggests that modern science is based on ten dogmas, and makes the case that none of them hold up to scrutiny. According to him, these dogmas — including, for example, that nature is mechanical and purposeless, that the laws and constants of nature are fixed, and that psychic phenomena like telepathy are impossible — have held back the pursuit of knowledge.

TED’s scientific advisors have questioned whether his list is a fair description of scientific assumptions — indeed, several of the dogmas are actually active areas of science inquiry (including whether physical ‘constants’ are really unchanging) — and believe there is little evidence for some of Sheldrake’s more radical claims, such as his theory of morphic resonance, and claim that the speed of light has been changing. They recommended that the talk be should not be distributed without being framed with caution. Accordingly, we have reposted his talk here, with the above cautionary introduction. We invite scientists, skeptics, knowledge-seekers and supporters — and Sheldrake himself, if he’s willing — to join in a conversation over this talk.

Is this an idea worth spreading, or misinformation? Does Sheldrake accurately describe scientists’ beliefs and are his theories credible? What’s the evidence for either position?

There’s only one rule for the conversation. Comments need to be phrased in respectful terms. Those that are intemperate or unnecessarily insulting will be removed.

Join the conversation here, where it’s possible to upvote comments, sort by recency or rating, and see all comments in one page. We look forward to the discussion.
Click to expand...
 
birdman said:
I am not bugging one fucking milimeter on the reality of a biodiversity crisis. It is real and it will undoubtedly be a massive problem for humanity. It's been an interesting conversation up to that point.
Click to expand...
What really bothers me with this response is it is clearly very emotional...and the emotion that we are somehow responsible for fucking up the planet is why so many people want soooooo badly to believe in the CO2 crap. And will ignore all sorts of things to believe in it.

BTW.....the biodiversity scare is driven by *another* set of predictions from models that have failed, that of the ice pack melting and things like polar bears going extinct. The IPCC claimed Arctic Ice and glaciers could all be gone by the early 2020s. Those models were so biased and so scientifically wrong, they had to be retracted after being published. Arctic ice is now actually increasing despite the claimed warming air temperatures. With more detailed measurements, it doesn't even appear that Antarctic ice ever really melted, outside of regional changes. Five years ago, the rationale for the difference was that the Arctic ice was more sensitive to global air temperatures than the Antarctic ice. Now that the Arctic Ice appears to be increasing, the focus has shifted to ocean temps.........the very issue pointed out way way back in 1990 in the first IPCC report.

"It's the ocean stupid"....maybe I can get that as a bumper sticker.
 
Last edited:
pourdeac said:
The biodiversity "crisis" is over hundreds of years, is likely due to man just existing on the planet, and has zippo to do with CO2. Changing our CO2 habits will have zero effect. That's just more sensationalism and the kind of extremism that is a huge part of the problem. Yeah, it was actually a productive conversation until you went off the cliff.
Click to expand...

If I went off a cliff, you pushed me. To argue that the biodiversity collapse "has no real basis" is either just plain wrong or it's trolling. There was 0 sensationalism in my original post referencing the biodiversity crisis, until you denied it is even a problem. I didn't say the biodiversity crisis was initially caused by CO2, I said climate change and sea level rise are causing current threats and will exacerbate them. You responded with "biodiversity collapses that have no real basis" and that is pure bullshit. A biodiversity crisis is and has been happening and Climate change is already exacerbating it. Let skip the obvious polar bear problem and look, for example, at Hawaii. The last hope for native Hawaiian forest birds were high elevation refugia where it is too cold for mosquitoes and therefore avian malaria to establish populations. The mosquito line was about 5000 ft above sea level and at least a dozen bird species were persisting in decent numbers above that elevation for the past 200 years. Since the 70's mosquito presence has been creeping up hill and is now at about 6000 ft, because it is warmer and the tropical mosquito species that spreads the malaria is moving up hill. The threat to native Hawaiian birds has been exacerbated by warmer climates in the last 30 - 40 years.

Citation: https://www.researchgate.net/profil..._of_Kaua'i/links/0deec53c0829c3587f000000.pdf

You are accusing me of sensationalism and religious acceptance of climate change ideas, but if that is true you are guilty of the same in your denial.
 
You did not even watch his talk did you or bother to read his response to Ted. Perhaps you should do so before dismissing it. The video was on the main Ted YT channel and pulled after dogmatic atheist Jerry Coyne made a blog post complaining about it. Initially it could not be seen at all and there was a huge uproar- it generated more comments on the TED website than any other talk. So then Ted put it in a special section on their website, sort of a naughty corner, where they figured it would not be widely seen and would be flooded with negative comments from the most diehard TED Talk groupies. That didn't happen. Of course all the controversy did was make it one of the more popular TED talks after people started constantly reposting it to YT. This brief talk at a small TED event has now received millions of views.
 
pourdeac said:
What really bothers me with this response is it is clearly very emotional...and the emotion that we are somehow responsible for fucking up the planet is why so many people want soooooo badly to believe in the CO2 crap. And will ignore all sorts of things to believe in it.

BTW.....the biodiversity scare is driven by *another* set of predictions from models that have failed, that of the ice pack melting and things like polar bears going extinct. The IPCC claimed Arctic Ice and glaciers could all be gone by the early 2020s. Those models were so biased and so scientifically wrong, they had to be retracted after being published. Arctic ice is now actually increasing despite the claimed warming air temperatures. With more detailed measurements, it doesn't even appear that Antarctic ice ever really melted, outside of regional changes. Five years ago, the rationale for the difference was that the Arctic ice was more sensitive to global air temperatures than the Antarctic ice. Now that the Arctic Ice appears to be increasing, the focus has shifted to ocean temps.........the very issue pointed out way way back in 1990 in the first IPCC report. "It's the ocean stupid"....maybe I can get that as a bumper sticker.
Click to expand...

Of course I am emotional. I love birds with a passion. Many of the birds I love are at elevated risk of extinction exclusive because of human activity on the globe and it gets me upset. I hate to think that my kids will not have the chance to love the birds that I do, because the birds will be all dead and gone. So when someone comes along a casually says, without backing it up, there is no "real basis" for your concern, when I know the opposite is true, it evokes emotion. Some of us humans have emotions about the things we care about.
 
Rupert Sheldrake’s Response to the TED Scientific Board’s Statement
I would like to respond to TED’s claims that my TEDx talk “crossed the line into pseudoscience”, contains ”serious factual errors” and makes “many misleading statements.”

This discussion is taking place because the militant atheist bloggers Jerry Coyne and P.Z. Myers denounced me, and attacked TED for giving my talk a platform. I was invited to give my talk as part of a TEDx event in Whitechapel, London, called “Challenging Existing Paradigms.” That’s where the problem lies: my talk explicitly challenges the materialist belief system. It summarized some of the main themes of my recent book Science Set Free (in the UK called The Science Delusion). Unfortunately, the TED administrators have publically aligned themselves with the old paradigm of materialism, which has dominated science since the late nineteenth century.

TED say they removed my talk from their website on the advice of their Scientific Board, who also condemned Graham Hancock’s talk. Hancock and I are now facing anonymous accusations made by a body on whose authority TED relies, on whose advice they act, and behind whom they shelter, but whose names they have not revealed.

TED’s anonymous Scientific Board made three specific accusations:

Accusation 1:

“he suggests that scientists reject the notion that animals have consciousness, despite the fact that it’s generally accepted that animals have some form of consciousness, and there’s much research and literature exploring the idea.”

I characterized the materialist dogma as follows: “Matter is unconscious: the whole universe is made up of unconscious matter. There’s no consciousness in stars in galaxies, in planets, in animals, in plants and there ought not to be any in us either, if this theory’s true. So a lot of the philosophy of mind over the last 100 years has been trying to prove that we are not really conscious at all.” Certainly some biologists, including myself, accept that animals are conscious. In August, 2012, a group of scientists came out with an endorsement of animal consciousness in “The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness”. As Discovery News reported, “While it might not sound like much for scientists to declare that many nonhuman animals possess conscious states, it’s the open acknowledgement that’s the big news here.”

But materialist philosophers and scientists are still in the majority, and they argue that consciousness does nothing – it is either an illusion or an ”epiphenomenon” of brain activity. It might as well not exist in animals – or even in humans. That is why in the philosophy of mind, the very existence of consciousness is often called “the hard problem”.

Accusation 2:

“He also argues that scientists have ignored variations in the measurements of natural constants, using as his primary example the dogmatic assumption that a constant must be constant and uses the speed of light as example.… Physicist Sean Carroll wrote a careful rebuttal of this point.”

TED’s Scientific Board refers to a Scientific American article that makes my point very clearly: “Physicists routinely assume that quantities such as the speed of light are constant.”

In my talk I said that the published values of the speed of light dropped by about 20 km/sec between 1928 and 1945. Carroll’s “careful rebuttal” consisted of a table copied from Wikipedia showing the speed of light at different dates, with a gap between 1926 and 1950, omitting the very period I referred to. His other reference (http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/speedoflight.html) does indeed give two values for the speed of light in this period, in 1928 and 1932-35, and sure enough, they were 20 and 24km/sec lower than the previous value, and 14 and 18 km/sec lower than the value from 1947 onwards.

1926: 299,798
1928: 299,778
1932-5: 299,774
1947: 299,792

In my talk I suggest how a re-examination of existing data could resolve whether large continuing variations in the Universal Gravitational Constant, G, are merely errors, as usually assumed, or whether they show correlations between different labs that might have important scientific implications hitherto ignored. Jerry Coyne and TED’s Scientific Board regard this as an exercise in pseudoscience. I think their attitude reveals a remarkable lack of curiosity.

Accusation 3:

I said, “There is in fact good evidence that new compounds get easier to crystallize all around the world.” For example, turanose, a kind of sugar, was considered to be a liquid for decades, until it first crystallized in the 1920s. Thereafter it formed crystals everyehere. (Woodard and McCrone Journal of Applied Crystallography (1975). 8, 342). The American chemist C. P. Saylor, remarked it was as though “the seeds of crystallization, as dust, were carried upon the winds from end to end of the earth” (quoted by Woodard and McCrone).

The research on rat behavior I referred to was carried out at Harvard and the Universities of Melbourne and Edinburgh and was published in peer-reviewed journals, including the British Journal of Psychology and the Journal of Experimental Biology. For a fuller account and detailed references see Chapter 11 of my book Morphic Resonance (in the US) / A New Science of Life (in the UK). The relevant passage is online here: sciencesetfree.tumblr.com

The TED Scientific Board refers to ”attempts by other scientists eager to replicate the work” on morphic resonance. I would be happy to work with these eager scientists if the Scientific Board can reveal who they are.

This is a good opportunity to correct an oversimplification in my talk. In relation to the dogma that mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works, I said, “that’s why governments only fund mechanistic medicine and ignore complementary and alternative therapies.” This is true of most governments, but the US is a notable exception. The US National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine receives about $130 million a year, about 0.4% of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) total annual budget of $31 billion.

Obviously I could not spell out all the details of my arguments in an 18-minute talk, but TED’s claims that it contains “serious factual errors,” “many misleading statements” and that it crosses the line into “pseudoscience” are defamatory and false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top