• 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)

Yeah, well, we've been here before. The consensus for AGW among the best and brightest--and best-credentialed--scientists continues to grow and now approaches near unanimity, while the dwindling opposition gets angrier and angrier and more and more strident by the minute. How do you explain this? Why in your opinion are mainstream scientists so resistant to what you regard as the truth? Are you sure you're not just being stubborn at this point?

And trillions, surely, not just a "few billions". . .. ;)

Dr. Richard Lindzen described what's going on in climate science several years ago, and I share his view. By definition, 'climate scientists' are not mainstream scientists at all. For one thing they don't acknowledge that science requires predictions to be verified against real world data obtained by independent scientists (not just their academic buddies). We recall that Einstein said that it would take only one experiment to prove his theory wrong; AGW theory (as expressed above) has been proven wrong repeatedly. But research funding comes from politicians, and politicians aren't scientists (with exceptions), and the show goes on.

Some time back, at your request, I posted a very fine scientific analysis, which I officially endorsed, concerning what turned out to be IPCC's non-existent "tropical hot spot." Such materials are ignored by climate scientists. That community is completely insular.

Ed
 

Attachments

  • Lindzen pg. 1.pdf
    67.6 KB · Views: 99
Yes, independent scientists, not just academic buddies often located at different institutions but drawing research funds from a common source.

Ed
 
Yes, independent scientists, not just academic buddies often located at different institutions but drawing research funds from a common source.

So, it's all about funding, tenure etc in your view, scientists who query AGWism being in danger of losing professional status and having their grants cut off. But I don't know what that proves, since it's true in other areas of science as well. A good analogy would be "Darwinism"; researchers who reject it root-&-branch (as opposed to nibbling around the edges) are going to have a hard time of it. Yet Darwinism is the most settled of settled science.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Richard Lindzen described what's going on in climate science several years ago, and I share his view. By definition, 'climate scientists' are not mainstream scientists at all. For one thing they don't acknowledge that science requires predictions to be verified against real world data obtained by independent scientists (not just their academic buddies).

Ed

It seems that there is some question just how 'independent' some contrarian scientists actually are - see https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rgy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding
 
Jumping to conclusions, ... again.

Richard Lindzen earned his academic credentials and kudos the hard way (publishing world-class research) for which he was elected to the US National Academy of Sciences, and was selected as a lead author for IPCC reports. After retirement he consulted for companies you folks don't like, but that's been well known for some time, — and personally I see nothing wrong with it.

Anyway, criticism by innuendo is what this thread is all about, so I'll say bye-bye.

Ed
 
Jumping to conclusions, ... again.

Richard Lindzen earned his academic credentials and kudos the hard way (publishing world-class research) for which he was elected to the US National Academy of Sciences, and was selected as a lead author for IPCC reports. After retirement he consulted for companies you folks don't like, but that's been well known for some time, — and personally I see nothing wrong with it.

Anyway, criticism by innuendo is what this thread is all about, so I'll say bye-bye.

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. You started the innuendo-fest, after all, with your suggestion that self-interest was an important factor in the scientific consensus on AGW.
 
Last edited:
Nothing I said was an innuendo. I was trying to explain what "independent," unbiased scientific testing is all about, that's all.

If you misunderstood what I said it's partially my bad for not saying it clearly enough. For that I apologize.

Ed
 
Nothing I said was an innuendo. I was trying to explain what "independent," unbiased scientific testing is all about, that's all.

If you misunderstood what I said it's partially my bad for not saying it clearly enough. For that I apologize.

My referent was not to the post I quoted but to your #63 which, if not innuendo, is only because it impugns the motives of "consensus" scientists more strongly than that word implies. For not making that more clear, I owe you an apology.

Semantic quibbling, there's no end to it, which is a pity since it seldom leads to anything worthwhile. . ..
 
Last edited:
Dr. Richard Lindzen described what's going on in climate science several years ago, and I share his view. By definition, 'climate scientists' are not mainstream scientists at all. For one thing they don't acknowledge that science requires predictions to be verified against real world data obtained by independent scientists (not just their academic buddies). We recall that Einstein said that it would take only one experiment to prove his theory wrong; AGW theory (as expressed above) has been proven wrong repeatedly. But research funding comes from politicians, and politicians aren't scientists (with exceptions), and the show goes on.

Some time back, at your request, I posted a very fine scientific analysis, which I officially endorsed, concerning what turned out to be IPCC's non-existent "tropical hot spot." Such materials are ignored by climate scientists. That community is completely insular.

Ed
Ed,

Perhaps not so unusual. It seems that despite best efforts to logically disassociate from societal norms (stemming from cooperation for survival, and organization), struggles with true 'objectivity' has been, is, and will be, an ongoing issue in Science, universally, and globally ....

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6329/1022.full


Chosun :gh:
 
Sydney had its hottest December night on record on the 13th, 2016.

This broke the previous record set in 1868! That's right, the 2nd hottest minimum temperature was 148 years ago, when the earth's population was < 1.5billion (~20% of today), and atmospheric CO2 concentrations were ~280 ppm (~70% of today).

So what's going on? AGW was not a factor back then, and the inconvenient truth is that it lies uncomfortably outside the much quoted hockey stick.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...t-december-record-bondi-beach-penrith/8118496

So while in my local area, a hottest summer temperature of 46.9°C (116°F) , and even one night where it was still 36°C (96°F) at midnight, was certainly uncomfortable, it doesn't explain that record temperature 148 years ago. If anyone can explain that (pre AGW theorised) 1868 record - I'm all ears.


Chosun :gh:
 
Last edited:
So while in my local area, a hottest summer temperature of 46.9°C (116°F) , and even one night where it was still 36°C (96°F) at midnight, was certainly uncomfortable, it doesn't explain that record temperature 148 years ago. If anyone can explain that (pre AGW theorised) 1868 record - I'm all ears.

Easily explained:1868 was an unusually hot year in Australia for its time, an outlier, and as such has no bearing at all on AGW in the 21st century
 
Easily explained:1868 was an unusually hot year in Australia ......

Well, let's just say that it was ........ then what caused it?

And what caused the 'Federation Drought' (~ a decade c1900) ?

I'm open to answers on the AGW theory either way, but ALL the factors causing climate change need to be identified and quantified. I'd hate to hang an innocent man. Maybe I'll be waiting a while for my pie chart. Until then, the jury is out.

Sydney had its hottest summer on record, yet fell short of the all time temperature record set in 1939. It was also only NSW's 3rd hottest summer on record.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-01/sydney-summer-the-hottest-on-record/8315672

Meanwhile Autumn has fallen, and it's been 4 weeks of gloriously mild temperatures, misty mountains, and bucket loads and bucket loads of rain ......

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

Trump seems to be doing a fantastic job - politicians everywhere are running scared, trying to jump on the nationalist bandwagon, fearful that the far right will steal some of the gravy. Recent elections in Western Australia, and the Netherlands, show that the people have more sense than that (well in fairness far right 'One Nation' leader Pauline Hanson was last seen with gunshot foot still firmly lodged in mouth).

Our visionless PM has also somehow stumbled upon the pumped hydro solution similar to the one proposed by the Australian National University study (that I linked earlier in a couple of other threads - repeated below), but not before Elon Musk publicly solved our energy supply problems with a guaranteed 100 day battery storage solution to South Australia's renewable energy production fluctuations. It was also highly entertaining to see the South Australian Premier 'shirt front' the dilly dallying Federal Energy Minister at a press conference this morning :eek!:

http://reneweconomy.com.au/anu-wind-solar-hydro-grid-cheapest-option-australia-87796/


Chosun :gh:
 
Last edited:
Interesting, Juan.

Our media is keeping up its incessant attacks on Trump, but they aren't gaining any ground. Most Americans, whether they like the guy or not, think that they are all completely biased and untrustworthy.
Liberal rag Politico had to be loath to report Trump's 52% approval rating in their own poll... As expected they buried it down the article between caveats about the health care proposal and other issues.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/poll-voters-wary-of-gop-health-care-bill-236055

It's almost as pathetic as Rachel Maddow's farcical Trump tax revelation.
Even Slate agonizes over the epic fail... http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...p_was_a_cynical_self_defeating_spectacle.html
They're liars and scumbags all.
And right wing outlets like Gateway Pundit frame their narratives with garbage, too. Fake news abounds.
 
Easily explained:1868 was an unusually hot year in Australia for its time, an outlier, and as such has no bearing at all on AGW in the 21st century

That's funny. If data don't fit the theory, discard them as outliers. In rational analysis there are procedural rules for defining and discarding "outliers." Not liking the answer isn't one of them.

With regard to things having a bearing on AGW, what else could have a bearing since Anthropos means humans in Greek? Circular reasoning doesn't get anywhere, but it makes some people feel good. Me, I just get a bit nauseous.

I don't know that you'll read it, but this material by Don J. Easterbrook is very extensive and informative. He, believe it or not, is a strong environmentalist who advocates for pollution control (not including CO2).

Ed
 

Attachments

  • Eesterbrook Geologic Evidence of Recurring Climate Cycles.pdf
    4.1 MB · Views: 95
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