• 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.

Conservation in the Trumpocene (2 Viewers)

Nohatch said:
The full list is pretty hard to find, but a copy (which I presume is the original) can be found on this blog post:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02...raw-from-the-un-convention-on-climate-change/

Note that the main author (Prof. Emeritus Richard Lindzen) takes a rather narrow view of climate science using his own pet "Iris effect" theory: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x

J
Click to expand...

Putting aside the national/world politics (which may be too much to ask) it might be worth considering further what Einstein meant.

The explanation is somewhat tortured, but:
... no sooner has the epistemologist, who is seeking a clear system, fought his way through to such a system, than he is inclined to interpret the thought-content of science in the sense of his system and to reject whatever does not fit into his system. The scientist, however, cannot afford to carry his striving for epistemological systematic that far. He accepts gratefully the epistemological conceptual analysis; but the external conditions, which are set for him by the facts of experience, do not permit him to let himself be too much restricted in the construction of his conceptual world by the adherence to an epistemological system.
Click to expand...

In this instance expert environmentalists have their "systematic epistemology" all worked out, and scientists like Richard Lindzen are rejected. That's the way of it.

You have certainly selected the right quote. :t:

Ed
 
Last edited:
Big night for the "unproductive spurt" last night. Great speech, presidential in every way.

And people like me who own acreage with streams and ponds especially enjoyed the President's revoking of the EPA's "Clean Water Rule" yesterday. This act was just as much a misnomer as the 'Affordable Care Act.' Like many government programs the overreach was ridiculous.
I have actual (recent) documentation from the EPA with them wanting to monitor the watersheds on my property!

You guys will wail with hatred that he's destroying the environment, but that's rubbish. Americans have had enough of Obama's entrenched bureaucrats and their job-strangling regulations.

Our pond in Winter guise, Fugl. It's in America! :king: And I'll be placing nesting boxes in about a month as I always do.
 

Attachments

  • DSCN6729.jpg
    DSCN6729.jpg
    272.9 KB · Views: 59
Nice one Ed ;) I'm quite happy to have an extensive discussion about dogma and bias in science, and can provide some fun inside examples if you like.
However, to challenge very strong evidence-based scientific consensus you'd need some pretty strong arguments (backed up by real-world evidence). Richard Lindzen's simply hasn't got either - and in the face of counter- arguments and evidence he has become dogmatic himself, rather than produce something to change other people's minds.

Got to love that quote though!
Joost

P.S. just spotted you're ex-NASA...I'm sure you have a few inside tales to tell yourself!
 
Last edited:
Nohatch said:
Nice one Ed ;) I'm quite happy to have an extensive discussion about dogma and bias in science, and can provide some fun inside examples if you like.
However, to challenge very strong evidence-based scientific consensus you'd need some pretty strong arguments (backed up by real-world evidence). Richard Lindzen's simply hasn't got either - and in the face of counter- arguments and evidence he has become dogmatic himself, rather than produce something to change other people's minds.

Got to love that quote though!
Joost
Click to expand...

The irony here is that you don't understand that "...evidence-based scientific consensus" is exactly what systematic epistemologists have invented to reject the thought content of scientists who don't fit into their system.

Ed
 
elkcub said:
The irony here is that you don't understand that "...evidence-based scientific consensus" is exactly what systematic epistemologists have invented to reject the thought content of scientists who don't fit into their system.
Click to expand...

"Evidence-based scientific consensus" as opposed to what, exactly?
 
elkcub said:
The irony here is that you don't understand that "...evidence-based scientific consensus" is exactly what systematic epistemologists have invented to reject the thought content of scientists who don't fit into their system.

Ed
Click to expand...

Oh come on Ed that is a little paranoid. Evidence-based consensus is the only workable solution to ever get stuff done. You make it sound as if there is some sort of global conspiracy of scientists (or is it just climatologists?) who continually close ranks and purposefully keep fresh ideas out. Is that truly your experience as a (former) scientist? It certainly isn't mine!

J
 
Last edited:
Wood ducks, NoHatch.
They really seem to love our canyon and pond, it's very wild and secluded.
We still loose ducklings to coyotes, hawks and owls once they flop out of the box, I've watched coyotes literally swim around after them. But we do see some grow to maturity.
Nothing quite as beautiful as a drake wood duck.
 
Nice :) You're a lucky man to live in a place like that.

Must've been quite some non-epistemological duck who came up with the idea of breeding in a tree...you can see the rest of the duck community muttering to one another "That ain't ever gonna work!" :p

J
 
Nohatch said:
Nice :) You're a lucky man to live in a place like that.

Must've been quite some non-epistemological duck who came up with the idea of breeding in a tree...you can see the rest of the duck community muttering to one another "That ain't ever gonna work!" :p

J
Click to expand...

Agreed.

After losing countless eggs to ravens, snakes and other thieves, one would think that all ducks would have adapted and joined in the tree fad!
 
Nohatch said:
Oh come on Ed that is a little paranoid. Evidence-based consensus is the only workable solution to ever get stuff done. You make it sound as if there is some sort of global conspiracy of scientists (or is it just climatologists?) who continually close ranks and purposefully keep fresh ideas out. Is that truly your experience as a (former) scientist? It certainly isn't mine!

J
Click to expand...

Are you a scientist, and if so in what field?

Ed
 
Last edited:
elkcub said:
Are you a scientist, and if so in what field?

Ed
Click to expand...

Guilty as charged ;)

Undergrad in Earth Sciences with a Masters in palaeo-environment/climate reconstruction
Exchange year in Reykjavik messing about with volcanoes and glaciers and things (more for the fun of it if I'm totally honest)
PhD in global biogeochemistry and analytical chemistry
Postdocs in microbial ecology and cellular biochemistry
Since switched into doing more medically-oriented research and now lead a lab doing human biochemistry (although a lot of other organisms too: algae, bacteria, corals etc). Bit of teaching too.

J
 
Nohatch said:
Oh come on Ed that is a little paranoid. Evidence-based consensus is the only workable solution to ever get stuff done. You make it sound as if there is some sort of global conspiracy of scientists (or is it just climatologists?) who continually close ranks and purposefully keep fresh ideas out. Is that truly your experience as a (former) scientist? It certainly isn't mine!

J
Click to expand...

I'm bemused by the highlighted statement. Two points come to mind: (1) if the purpose of science is to reach a "consensus," then when consensus is reached further research is no longer necessary (i.e., fresh ideas/refutations can be purposefully disregard); (2) Einstein's famous assertion: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

With regard to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, several competent empirical and theoretical analyses clearly demonstrate to me that it is wrong. I'd be happy to share them with you if you'd like to provide a technical review.

Lastly, since I have no political or social agenda to "...get stuff done," I really don't follow the imperative.

Ed
 
Last edited:
At the end of a speech to a science teacher's association in 1966, Richard Feynman commented candidly:
... I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television--words, books, and so on--are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.
Click to expand...

And now we can add the Internet.

Ed
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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.

Similar threads

W
New Bio on Bird Conservationist/MBTA Sponsor
Replies
1
Views
534
KC Foggin
KC Foggin
S
Africa’s Birds of Prey Are in Decline, a New Study Finds
Replies
4
Views
651
Andrew Whitehouse
Andrew Whitehouse
T
AOS NACC/SACC taxonomic committee governance and structures (no discussions on patronyms)
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
Mike Earp
M
Taphrospilus
Lophophorus lhuysii Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, AL 1866
Replies
0
Views
339
Taphrospilus
Taphrospilus
F
The new Pangaea
Replies
0
Views
581
fugl
F

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top