Page 20 of 145 FirstFirst ... 1015161718192021222324253070120 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 400 of 2881

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

  1. #381
    Here's another winner

    January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund commenting (in a NY Times interview) on the mild winters in New York City. ”But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”

  2. #382
    Doesn't matter how wildly and consistently wrong the scientists who feed these stories:

    March 29, 2001, CNN ”In ten years time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.” [Next year we'll know if this extremely unlikely prediction comes true.]

  3. #383
    Quote Originally Posted by Lectro View Post
    Is 2005 better there, double aught...

    2005 Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation, “Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes.”

    I'll take it one at a time for the slower crew.
    Worse prediction: that? or this?

    FUGGIN IN

  4. #384
    Funny to see Openheimer "up the ante" in 2000 (see above) after this double whopper 10 years earlier:

    1990 Michael Oppenheimer, The Environmental Defense Fund, “(By) 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”

  5. #385
    This is a perfect thread on the lack of understanding of how science works.

  6. #386
    Quote Originally Posted by ThinkingWithMyDeac View Post
    This is a perfect thread on the lack of understanding of how science works.
    Thanks for admitting you don't know shit about the topic

  7. #387
    Can you just post the first sentence of the article and then post a link? Then if so inclined my college boy ass can educate itself.

    What do you do for a living lector? Just curious.
    When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen

  8. #388
    You constantly just post long winded reports from a variety of sources, and at least lately you are citing said sources. However your lack of understand and most peoples understanding of science, especially peer review science is tremendous. There is a reason everything is considered hypothesis and theory and not fact. The problem with something like climate change is it has become politicized and for this reason and this reason alone do both sides of an argument make it to the public. In good science you have people challenging your ideas pushing you to look a different way or continue to look at the same thing. Its like being a starter and having someone behind you on the depth chart push you to be better. For every scientific narrative there usually are two sides, its when these sides become talking points and pushed by an agenda that the scientific process breaks apart and you have misinformation and bad science. Things like climate change and vaccines cause autism are this generations smoking doesn't cause cancer. You can always find support for a position you have already formulated, its why the goal is always to show a hypothesis is null not that it is right and you go from there. Every experiment conducted has a variety of outcomes, if I conduct a similar experiment in lab through out this week there may be a time that it gives completely different results, there may be a time it shows no results, then there is the average of all the times that falls in the middle, the middle is what is reported not the outlier or this one time event. Science does not deal in absolutes but that is how it is talked about when it becomes a politicized battle, that's what it becomes when people try to prove something they do not understand but are fed what to believe by said talking points. It occurs on both sides of a politicized battle, both climate change super supporters and climate change deniers.

  9. #389
    This week, NPR aired a story about the recent "hiatus" in global warming. While I certainly expected the same-old, same-old, I didn't anticipate the depths of 'double-think' to which NPR is capable of stooping. Talk about an anti-intellectual shell game; in order to listen to this story with a straight face, the listener must forget everything he or she has ever been told (by the media) about the subject.

    After all -- Oceania has always been allied with Eurasia against Eastasia!

    Never mind -- that "the settled science of anthropogenic global warming" has consistently failed to predict any such cooling.

    Never mind -- that "the settled science of anthropogenic global warming" never previously 'assured us' that pollution in China could counteract the effects of increased atmospheric CO2.

    Never mind -- that "the settled science of anthropogenic global warming" frequently warned us that the oceans are getting dangerously hot.

    Never mind -- that "the settled science of anthropogenic global warming" foresaw no such abatement in climbing temperatures.

    Never mind -- that "the settled science of anthropogenic global warming" has, in the past, associated volcanic activity with global warming, rather than with global cooling.

    Never mind -- that "the settled science of anthropogenic global warming" should never have to stop, pause, contort, adjust, and reassure us (it's settled science, after all!).

    Never mind -- that "the settled science of anthropogenic global warming" must invent inherently contradictory notions (the reason oceans are colder is that they are storing extra heat!) to keep their hypothesis intact.

    Never mind -- that "the settled science of anthropogenic global warming" used to tell us the exact opposite of what they now tell us makes perfect sense (ex post facto), namely, that summers would be warmer, but winters would be colder.

    What's important is that the faith in the foundational theory is maintained!

    Please -- no need to flirt with agnosticism on this topic, for we, the media, shepherds of the sacred truth, have once again rescued the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming!

  10. #390
    lectro = intellectual shell

  11. #391
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    40,629

  12. #392
    Quote Originally Posted by ThinkingWithMyDeac View Post
    You constantly just post long winded reports from a variety of sources, and at least lately you are citing said sources. However your lack of understand and most peoples understanding of science, especially peer review science is tremendous. There is a reason everything is considered hypothesis and theory and not fact. The problem with something like climate change is it has become politicized and for this reason and this reason alone do both sides of an argument make it to the public. In good science you have people challenging your ideas pushing you to look a different way or continue to look at the same thing. Its like being a starter and having someone behind you on the depth chart push you to be better. For every scientific narrative there usually are two sides, its when these sides become talking points and pushed by an agenda that the scientific process breaks apart and you have misinformation and bad science. Things like climate change and vaccines cause autism are this generations smoking doesn't cause cancer. You can always find support for a position you have already formulated, its why the goal is always to show a hypothesis is null not that it is right and you go from there. Every experiment conducted has a variety of outcomes, if I conduct a similar experiment in lab through out this week there may be a time that it gives completely different results, there may be a time it shows no results, then there is the average of all the times that falls in the middle, the middle is what is reported not the outlier or this one time event. Science does not deal in absolutes but that is how it is talked about when it becomes a politicized battle, that's what it becomes when people try to prove something they do not understand but are fed what to believe by said talking points. It occurs on both sides of a politicized battle, both climate change super supporters and climate change deniers.
    Good post. This is why we do not need a trillion dollar boondoggle that will result in a new age land grab and thrust developing countries into even sharper contrast with the leading industrial societies.

  13. #393
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdoublezero View Post
    lectro = intellectual shell

    ...and Dr. Nada with his intellectual shell game. Vacuous membrane.

  14. #394
    Quote Originally Posted by ImTheCaptain View Post
    Steve Hawking directing our very own Cap'n to the Big Crunch.

    Cap'n Crunch

  15. #395
    Climate Alarmism predates the CO2 scandal. It has a long history filled with truly wild-eyed claims from scientists purporting to understand the workings of the weather. Here are a scant few from over a century ago... I'm just posting a few for those with limited spans...

    Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the Winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade. - New York Times June 23, 1890

    The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions - New York Times - February 24, 1895,

    The Oceanographic observations have, however, been even more interesting. Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never been noted. The expedition all but established a record….Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - January 1905
    “Fifth ice age is on the way…..Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” – Los Angles Times October 23, 1912

  16. #396
    Quote Originally Posted by ThinkingWithMyDeac View Post
    This is a perfect thread on the lack of understanding of how science works.
    Becoming clearer with every post.

  17. #397
    It used to be, in the enlightenment of rational, Western civilization, that we could debate differences of opinon without coming to blows and we believed in the objectivity of the Scientific Method. So how is it we’ve come to a new low in the rationality of those who are proponents of the human-driven ’global warming’ theory?

    Initially in the 70′s, given our complete lack of scientific understanding of extremely complex climate systems, we openly debated the science of how and why nature would cool, then warm, then cool and so on.

    Then came the bastardization of science for political and social activism in the 90′s. The irrationality of the debate worsened when those biases became the major conduit for scientific research funding in this field. Under this political-activist approach, skeptics of the unproven, human-driven climate theory were labeled ‘deniers’ and ‘stooges of Big Oil’. This was further reinforced by the ridiculous claim that ‘the scientific debate was over’ and that their was a ‘scientific consensus’ on the causes of climate change.

    As objective reality causes the activist warming theory to crumble, climate alarmists have now escalated to calling their opponents mentally ill:

    “This weekend, the University of West England is hosting a major conference on climate change denial. Strikingly, it’s being organized by the university’s Centre for Psycho-Social Studies. It will be a gathering of those from the top of society – ‘psychotherapists, social researchers, climate change activists, eco-psychologists’ – who will analyze those at the bottom of society, as if we were so many flitting, irrational amoeba under an eco-microscope. The organizers say the conference will explore how ‘denial’ is a product of both ‘addiction and consumption’ and is the ‘consequence of living in a perverse culture which encourages collusion, complacency and irresponsibility’

  18. #398
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    40,629
    what you're peddling is not "enlightened, rational debate".

  19. #399
    Quote Originally Posted by ImTheCaptain View Post
    what you're peddling is not "enlightened, rational debate".
    I don't give a fuck about your "opinion". I proved the "97% consensus" is a load of Krap.

    That's all I set out to do, and I did it. So call me out on another thread.

    I await the midgetry.

  20. #400
    Quote Originally Posted by ThinkingWithMyDeac View Post
    Things like climate change and vaccines cause autism are this generations smoking doesn't cause cancer. You can always find support for a position you have already formulated, its why the goal is always to show a hypothesis is null not that it is right and you go from there. Every experiment conducted has a variety of outcomes..

    Science does not deal in absolutes but that is how it is talked about when it becomes a politicized battle, that's what it becomes when people try to prove something they do not understand but are fed what to believe by said talking points. It occurs on both sides of a politicized battle, both climate change super supporters and climate change deniers.
    But that's not really the problem in this case. One of the leading scientists in the mist 1980s on this topic was Linus Pauling and he had an observation based on measured science and formulated a theory, an interesting theory that we are slowly getting back to. We suddenly jumped from that to something totally different based solely on computer modeling, never having DISPROVEN the original data, it was just ignored. Why? IMO the underlying question changed. We went from "why is the earth's temperature rising faster than the solar changes?" to "How is man fucking up the earth?".

    That jump wasn't science, and neither is the new question...it's all politics. Computer modeling isn't really science either, because you can't prove (or disprove) the null hypothesis by computer modeling. It's a guide for HOW to approach the science or experimentation....experiments that in this case can't even be run. The jump was made to blame industrial activity with obvious political intentions. They jumped to a methodology that really can't be argued against...because the methodology really can never have an accurate answer. They then argued, knowing the flaws, in absolutes, ignoring any real conflicting science (ie never disproving it)....perfectly safe behind the methodology they frame as science.

    So climate researchers have violated nearly everything you said science is. The can't disprove the null hypothesis, they didn't disprove competing hypotheses, they argue in absolutes, they ignore real science. How does one address via science such a non-scientific process? It's happening, but very slowly...as the IPCC reports inch away from CO2. But we should never have gotten to where we are in the first place had science done it's job the right way. People will look back on what happened in disbelief......50 years from now.

    Activist science is a major problem, as is scientific group think (and the processes leading to it like peer review). Science isn't followed in a lot of places...we call science. It's unfortunate. We just aren't teaching kids the fundamentals.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •