• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

AGW and rising sea levels (2 Viewers)

etudiant,

Here's the article in .pdf form.
 

Attachments

  • Trump to reverse Obama-era order aimed at planning for climate change - The Washington Post.pdf
    65.2 KB · Views: 70
Article is paywalled, but don't think it is good for the country to have an infra structure work moratorium.
I was disappointed that so little was undertaken by Obama and am dismayed that this situation is likely to continue.

Obama, of course, was obstructed at every turn by a Republican congress; Dumbo, on the other hand, has only his own incompetence to blame.

Paywalled; are you sure there's no way around it? I ask because I've posted fair numbers of links to Washington Post articles the last few months and nobody else has had trouble accessing them as far as I know.
 
Riiiiiight.
O had the majority for some time.

And Obama's brainchild was the trillion dollar stimulus monstrosity, but oh yeah, quoting the weakling..."I guess 'shovel-ready' wasn't as 'shovel-ready' as we expected"....er.....*chuckle*.

Pathetic....and his legacy.
 
Paywalled; are you sure there's no way around it? I ask because I've posted fair numbers of links to Washington Post articles the last few months and nobody else has had trouble accessing them as far as I know.

I can only get the headline briefly before the wall comes down.
It may be paywalled for me because I was previously a subscriber. Or perhaps a funky browser setting I'm not skilled enough to adjust.
 
I don't know about the NYT, but it's easy enough to make a pdf file for WaPo articles, which is what I did on #222. Newspapers have the right to limit viewing online to those who pay for the privilege. IMO.

Ed
 
Riiiiiight.
O had the majority for some time.

And Obama's brainchild was the trillion dollar stimulus monstrosity, but oh yeah, quoting the weakling..."I guess 'shovel-ready' wasn't as 'shovel-ready' as we expected"....er.....*chuckle*.

Pathetic....and his legacy.[/QUOTE

It is not good for the country when the Congress wastes its time shooting at each other rather than addressing the manifold problems we face.
Byzantium went down because its leaders were focused on getting their opponents rather than on saving the state. Hopefully we have learned from that experience.
 
I don't know about the NYT, but it's easy enough to make a pdf file for WaPo articles, which is what I did on #222. Newspapers have the right to limit viewing online to those who pay for the privilege. IMO.

Sure, but I'm a subscriber and you'd think they'd want me to share articles with non-subscribers for marketing reasons. Maybe there's an implementation problem of some sort?
 
Sure, but I'm a subscriber and you'd think they'd want me to share articles with non-subscribers for marketing reasons. Maybe there's an implementation problem of some sort?

That's my point. Being a subscriber (as I am with WaPo) shouldn't give us the right to link potentially dozens of people on BF to their website as non-paying visitors. WaPo allows downloading files in pdf form and distributing them. NYT may do the same. It only takes a little more work to do it.

Ed
 
That's my point. Being a subscriber (as I am with WaPo) shouldn't give us the right to link potentially dozens of people on BF to their website as non-paying visitors. WaPo allows downloading files in pdf form and distributing them. NYT may do the same. It only takes a little more work to do it.

Not to the entire content, certainly, but to individual articles, why not, particularly in view of the pdf work-around you mention? As I've said, I would have thought small-scale sharing of this sort would be welcomed as a potential means of bringing new subscribers into the fold
 
Not to the entire content, certainly, but to individual articles, why not, particularly in view of the pdf work-around you mention? As I've said, I would have thought small-scale sharing of this sort would be welcomed as a potential means of bringing new subscribers into the fold

How would that be established? My suggestion works quite well and avoids wasting time challenging newspaper publication policies. Besides, there's a big advantage to downloading PDF files for future access.

For example, it's much easier to reconstruct historical events with PDF files than the old fashioned method of clipping newspaper articles — see attachment, it's a humerus read. |=)|

Ed
 

Attachments

  • 1970 Global Cooling Scare Front Page News _ The Deplorable Climate Science Blog.pdf
    3.2 MB · Views: 316
How would that be established?
The ability to post links to individual articles to non-subscribers would be one of the privileges of the paid subscription.

I take your point about the advantages of pdfs which would remain an option. A good analogy might be text messaging vs email. I was quite scornful of the former when first introduced but am now devoted to it as just that little bit more convenient which makes all the difference.
 
It is not good for the country when the Congress wastes its time shooting at each other rather than addressing the manifold problems we face.
Byzantium went down because its leaders were focused on getting their opponents rather than on saving the state. Hopefully we have learned from that experience.
You won't get an argument from me on that. Both sides are absolute obstructionist snakes.

Although when the country votes a man in, they usually want his policies instituted--*usually.* O'care was loathed by most all on both sides.
Trump ran on many things and some of them, like staunch immigration enforcement, are still wildly popular across party lines.
 
Trusting climate science--

http://flip.it/Mpsjtl

Mr. Gillis got it backwards. The great men of science that he mentions, Galileo, Einstein, etc. were the skeptics of their time. The reason they are now credited with scientific revolutions is exactly because the experts of the day had reached an incorrect consensus. Would you have been skeptical of geocentrism as Galileo was, or questioned the limits of Newtonian physics as Einstein did? I don't think so.

Ed
 
Mr. Gillis got it backwards. The great men of science that he mentions, Galileo, Einstein, etc. were the skeptics of their time. The reason they are now credited with scientific revolutions is exactly because the experts of the day had reached an incorrect consensus. Would you have been skeptical of geocentrism as Galileo was, or questioned the limits of Newtonian physics as Einstein did? I don't think so.

Actually, it's you who have got it backwards. It's the AGW deniers who are the reactionary stick-in-the-muds here, the supporters who are the forward thinkers.

How would I have reacted to Galileo's and Einstein's discoveries had I been contemporary with them? I don't know. Probably, since I'm no physicist, with skepticism in Galileo's case (though I would have enjoyed the church's discomfiture), bemusement in Einstein's. I suspect your reaction, and that of most of the other posters to this thread, would have been similar, at least initially. It's very difficult to shake oneself free of prevailing prejudices in the kinds of fundamental questions dealt with by these 2 great scientists, particularly when the proffered alternatives are so counter-intuitive. In any case, the analogy with the current climate science "debate", involving as it does the patient collection and analysis of empirical data with no questioning of basic principles, is comically overblown,
 
Last edited:
Actually, it's you who have got it backwards. It's the AGW deniers who are the reactionary stick-in-the-muds here, the supporters [of AGW] who are the forward thinkers.

How would I have reacted to Galileo's and Einstein's discoveries had I been contemporary with them? I don't know. Probably, since I'm no physicist or scientist, with skepticism in Galileo's case (though I would have enjoyed the church's discomfiture), bemusement in Einstein's. I suspect your reaction, and that of most of the other posters to this thread, would have been similar, at least initially. It's very difficult to shake oneself free of prevailing prejudices in the kinds of fundamental questions dealt with by these 2 great scientists, particularly when the proffered alternatives are so counter-intuitive. In any case, the analogy with the current climate science "debate", involving as it does the patient collection and analysis of empirical data with no questioning of basic principles, is comically overblown,

It is apparent that you have neither listened to nor thought about what legitimate, skeptical scientists have been saying about various AGW hypotheses, e.g., that man is responsible for most of the global warming during the 20th Century, back radiation warms the earth, etc. It's been pointed out by many qualified physicists that these statements violate the basic principles of thermodynamics and gas chemistry. It's been pointed out by qualified applied statisticians (including me) that climate science data are often fictitious, e.g., reconstructions, and that analyses often use misrepresentations known as "lying with statistics." Critical tests are hard to come by (primarily because AGW predictions are imprecise) but a few have been performed on empirical data that clearly do not support assertions made by the IPCC and others who rely on circulation models.

BTW, your incessant use of pejoratives, as highlighted above, reflects the underlying contempt you obviously have for anyone with a different opinion. That terminology is appropriate for Holocaust "deniers," perhaps, but despicable when applied to sincere people whose only sin is to question the scientific basis for AGW. That, and being called a conspiracy theorist, is very hard to overlook.

Ed
 
Last edited:
It is apparent that you have neither listened to nor thought about what legitimate, skeptical scientists have been saying about various AGW hypotheses, e.g., that man is responsible for most of the global warming during the 20th Century, back radiation warms the earth, etc. It's been pointed out by many qualified physicists that these statements violate the basic principles of thermodynamics and gas chemistry. It's been pointed out by qualified applied statisticians (including me) that climate science data are often fictitious, e.g., reconstructions, and that analyses often use misrepresentations known as "lying with statistics." Critical tests are hard to come by (primarily because AGW predictions are imprecise) but a few have been performed on empirical data that clearly do not support assertions made by the IPCC and others who rely on circulation models.

BTW, your incessant use of pejoratives, as highlighted above, reflects the underlying contempt you obviously have for anyone with a different opinion. That terminology is appropriate for Holocaust "deniers," perhaps, but despicable when applied to sincere people whose only sin is to question the scientific basis for AGW. That, and being called a conspiracy theorist, is very hard to overlook.

Ed


Brav---freaking--O...

And frankly I mentioned those same scientists here a year ago for the same reasons.
Hilarity ensued by the 'open minded'....
 
It is apparent that you have neither listened to nor thought about what legitimate, skeptical scientists have been saying about various AGW hypotheses, e.g., that man is responsible for most of the global warming during the 20th Century, back radiation warms the earth, etc. It's been pointed out by many qualified physicists that these statements violate the basic principles of thermodynamics and gas chemistry. It's been pointed out by qualified applied statisticians (including me) that climate science data are often fictitious, e.g., reconstructions, and that analyses often use misrepresentations known as "lying with statistics." Critical tests are hard to come by (primarily because AGW predictions are imprecise) but a few have been performed on empirical data that clearly do not support assertions made by the IPCC and others who rely on circulation models.

BTW, your incessant use of pejoratives, as highlighted above, reflects the underlying contempt you obviously have for anyone with a different opinion. That terminology is appropriate for Holocaust "deniers," perhaps, but despicable when applied to sincere people whose only sin is to question the scientific basis for AGW. That, and being called a conspiracy theorist, is very hard to overlook.

C'mon, Ed, calm down. You consider yourself an AGW "denier", do you then, not a "skeptic"? If so, I was mistaken in giving you the benefit of the doubt, the "sin" to my mind being not in the "questioning" of AGW but in its blanket rejection. With regard to disrespectful language ("pejoratives", etc.), pot calling the kettle black: you're the one after all who described a whole highly credentialed profession as "not true scientists".

Anyway, we've danced this dance many times before--too many--so I won't go on.

PS. My sympathies. It must be annoying to have that illiterate lamebrain crawl out of the undergrowth with his inane comments in your support whenever we get into one of these wrangles. [And how's that for a fine array of "pejoratives" in a single not very long sentence. ;)]
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top