The truth and nothing but the truth - Page 5 - Router Forums
 112Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #41 of 64 (permalink) Old 02-28-2017, 11:45 PM
Registered User
 
furboo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Country: United States
First Name: Rob
Posts: 544
 
Default

After I couldn't hold my breath any longer, I read this:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...oes-or-humans/

Just because you're an expert in one area of science (mining geology), doesn't make you an expert in another area (say, neurosurgery, particle physics, climate change...). This is true even in a seemingly related discipline (plasma physics vs. particle physics). Generally, scientific disciplines are highly specialized. Being smart isn't enough.

I trust peer review above all else. Most scientists do. I don't care if you've won a Nobel Prize in some other area, you have to go through the process. Scientific American basically collates peer-reviewed research. I highly recommend it, compared with, say, a random article on the internet.

This is also worth reading, about Plimer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

Rob
furboo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #42 of 64 (permalink) Old 03-01-2017, 11:16 AM
Forum Contributor
 
DesertRatTom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: United States
First Name: Tom
Posts: 17,101
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by furboo View Post
After I couldn't hold my breath any longer, I read this:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...oes-or-humans/

Just because you're an expert in one area of science (mining geology), doesn't make you an expert in another area (say, neurosurgery, particle physics, climate change...). This is true even in a seemingly related discipline (plasma physics vs. particle physics). Generally, scientific disciplines are highly specialized. Being smart isn't enough.

I trust peer review above all else. Most scientists do. I don't care if you've won a Nobel Prize in some other area, you have to go through the process. Scientific American basically collates peer-reviewed research. I highly recommend it, compared with, say, a random article on the internet.

This is also worth reading, about Plimer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
I politely disagree. The test of a theory is its ability to predict phenomena, and the climate change (global warming, looming mini ice age) predictions have not panned out. The failure to do this, and the conflating of CO2 with pollution, cast serious doubt on the theories, particularly the computer model that is the core of the so-called science. My brother is a retired physics professor and does not accept general agreement as proof of a model. Many of the doctors I work with have pretty good research backgrounds and caution against agreement as validation of an hypothesis, which is a better description of the current state of "climate science."


Definition of peer review: a process by which a scholarly work (such as a paper or a research proposal) is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or accepted. -Mariam Webster. Note that it is review of aspecific article, not of an hypothesis or theory. At best, climate change is an unproven hypothesis, based on a computer model that fails the prediction test.

I don't think the majority of people studying this field are corrupt, but the corporations and universities that stand to benefit from the $3 to $5 trillion in climate fix booty, are worthy of doubt.

However, the falsification of data and its skewed presentation does point to stinky apples in the climate change barrel.

The unfiltered burning of coal in the Far East produces an enormous load of pollution, gasses that really do impact people. If we concentrated on that and set up economic incentives to clean that up, it would be an effort worthy of making. But CO2?

I am a writer and journalist by training and pay careful attention to the use of words, and the climate change language is careless at best, thus casting further doubt on its unsupported assertions.

Don't mean to be assaultive in any way or to disrespect the opinions of others, but I am a doubting Thomas, by nature and training.
harrysin, Oakwerks and Herb Stoops like this.

The more I do, the less I accomplish.

Last edited by DesertRatTom; 03-01-2017 at 11:18 AM.
DesertRatTom is offline  
post #43 of 64 (permalink) Old 03-01-2017, 01:00 PM
Moderation Team
 
Cherryville Chuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
First Name: Charles
Posts: 15,424
 
Default

I tend to agree with Tom, Rob. I majored in physics at university for a while so I also understand the scientific method. Peer review mostly says that didn't make any obvious mistakes or inflate or deflate certain data to make your hypothesis seem more plausible. The true test is in it's ability to accurately describe and predict situations. You said earlier that Newton was wrong. That's not technically true. Newton had the concepts down perfectly, in fact amazingly so considering the time he lived in. What he could not have known at the time was that time was variable according to relative velocity. Einstein merely added a correction factor to Newton's equations of motion. In over 300 years Newton's equations have never been proven wrong even once. The equations were just refined a bit is all. Einstein's equations haven't been proven wrong even once in over 100 years either but doesn't mean that they might not be improved on. We'll see if quantum physicists can do that.

And that leads back to the problem Tom pointed out, is that none of the climate change predictions have proven accurate so far. Nor are climate change predictions able to tell us why ice ages happened or why it was so warm between 900-1200 that the Northern Passage was reported by the Vikings to be ice free. Any reliable climate model also has to be able to predict those type events.

Rob you also hinted at another misconception, one related to the massive clearcut at Bowron Lakes. Environmentalists said that it would destroy the ecosystem and it didn't and global warmists say that global warming will destroy the earth. Neither statement is true. The earth will be fine. As George Carlin said once "It's taken a lot worse than what we are throwing at it". It's people that will be in trouble. The earth will recover from elevated CO2 levels quite easily. In the early stages of the earth there was only CO2 in the atmosphere. It took plants to sequester the carbon and leave the O2 free. Plant life will flourish under higher CO2 levels and eventually the ecosystem will return to current levels. People may not fare so well. The earth has the capability to sustain about 1.5 to 2 billion people and allow them to live comfortably. We are well above that and climbing at an exponential rate. For people the earth will become a living hell in time. It is inescapable unless we control population growth. That is where we should be putting our time and money. Climate change is a subterfuge that we are pissing away our resources on and diverting us from attending to the real problem.
harrysin, Oakwerks and Herb Stoops like this.

Someone I consider a master woodworker once told me that a master woodworker is not someone who never makes mistakes. He is someone who is able to cover them up so that no one can tell.
Cherryville Chuck is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #44 of 64 (permalink) Old 03-01-2017, 06:56 PM
Forum Contributor
 
DesertRatTom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: United States
First Name: Tom
Posts: 17,101
 
Default

To all, this has been a remarkable discussion of climate change issues. It is the kind of discussion that should be had in general media. However, that is unlikely. Perhaps we should work out a way to transfuse the peaceful and thoughtful ways of our group into the general population.

The more I do, the less I accomplish.
DesertRatTom is offline  
post #45 of 64 (permalink) Old 03-02-2017, 10:40 AM
Registered User
 
furboo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Country: United States
First Name: Rob
Posts: 544
 
Default

Tom, I totally agree, and I'm really enjoying the conversation. I want to respond to you, Chuck, Harry more, but I've been swamped at work this week, and I haven't been able to take the time it deserves. Plus, I'm a slow, crappy writer. I'll try to get to it this tomorrow or this weekend...

Rob
furboo is offline  
post #46 of 64 (permalink) Old 03-02-2017, 03:23 PM
Forum Contributor
 
DesertRatTom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: United States
First Name: Tom
Posts: 17,101
 
Default

@furboo Rob, looking forward to your response. One of my mentors was an advisor on doctoral research required of doctors of optometry (heavy optics and biology) by a man who'se CV was 63 pages long, single spaced. He really taught me to be a skeptic about most research, explaining that no hypothesis can be proven using standard statistical methods. You can only disprove, or demonstate you cannot disprove the null hypothesis, should you happen by some chance, to have stated it accurately. The null hypothesis is essentially, the opposite of the hypothesis being tested. Multivariate research sounds good, but is almost impossible to do accurately.

He also helped me come to see that much of what passes for research suffers from confirmation bias. The recent revelations leaked about the falsification of data by a government agency (NASA-NOAH?) seems to have been quite intentional, however.

The more I do, the less I accomplish.
DesertRatTom is offline  
post #47 of 64 (permalink) Old 03-03-2017, 11:30 PM
Registered User
 
furboo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Country: United States
First Name: Rob
Posts: 544
 
Default

Sorry for the slow response. Let's start here: Regardless of your previous statements, I hope we at least agree at some level on the following:

1) Annual average temperatures (particularly ocean) have increased a measurable amount in the past several decades. Whether this change has been caused by humans is another question.

2) This increase has already had a measurable impact, thus far, such as significant ice pack decrease and glacier retreat.

3) If the temperatures continue to rise at the same rate, over the next several decades, then with our current technology, this will be at best an enormous challenge to our current way of life. I'm not saying there's proof this will happen, just seeing if you agree there is a significant consequence if there is such a temperature increase.

If you don't agree with thee above, there's probably not much point in discussing climate change. We're just too far apart. After all, if I understand Exxon and/or BP's stance on climate, even they would agree with the above, along with some degree of human culpability.

Regardless, some of the criticisms you have are common and there are alternative viewpoints that sound reasonable. I would ask that you check out this site:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

and let me know what you think. No doubt, some of the answers are simplistic, but it's a start.

Now, let me address at least a couple items that you've brought up:

Tom, I agree on coal burning, regardless of location. And "CO2" is quicker to type than "greenhouse gases." By peer review, I was indeed responding to the specific article that Harry posted. I agree that a single peer-reviewed article is far less than the scientific consensus established for climate change. And if you demand proof, there won't be proof of climate change until it's too late. Unfortunately, we don't have 2 or more Earths to provide controls. But I also agree that at some level, scientists should be skeptical of any theory. That's their job.

Chuck, population control is an admirable goal, and I would like to see more discussion on this. However, I'm pretty sure your number of 1.5 to 2 Billion, or even 6.9 billion, would have far less consensus and result in much more controversy than climate change. At least in the U.S. As far as Newton, if only I could have such an impact. "Wrong" was maybe too harsh, but it is what it is. My understanding of relativity, albeit all I really know well is special relativity, and even that is a lot more than just the Lorentz factor. GPS navigation is a great example of Newton wrong, in that it wouldn't work very well without Einstein. Sure, Newton works great for a lot of situations, and I really don't think Newton would be insulted (even though he was a jerk). A series of refinements describe science quite well, and most refinements are MUCH smaller than Einsteins'. Sorry, this is getting off track of climate...

I do think you guys are overreacting a bit on falsification, scandals, profit motives, etc. With the scrutiny of climate research, I can't believe there's not many more "scandals." Scientists are human. I hope nobody ever goes through my e-mails or quotes me. Even if true (the most recent with NOAA is still not clear, and with others, you don't hear all sides in the press), these scandals are not the only data supporting the evidence. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a consensus. Also, see the pharmaceutical business. Should we forsake prescription drugs?

In terms of challenges that may be even more important than climate change, I'd put mass extinction on the top of the list. It's amazing how little press this gets.

Sorry to be so long-winded, and I haven't even come close to addressing everything brought up
DesertRatTom likes this.

Rob
furboo is offline  
post #48 of 64 (permalink) Old 03-03-2017, 11:34 PM
Registered User
 
furboo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Country: United States
First Name: Rob
Posts: 544
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post

Rob you also hinted at another misconception, one related to the massive clearcut at Bowron Lakes.
Chuck, I think there's a misunderstanding. Before you told me, I knew nothing about its particular beetle infestation and/or clear-cutting. My wife and I had a glorious paddle there back in September. The area was very beautiful, to me.

Rob
furboo is offline  
post #49 of 64 (permalink) Old 03-04-2017, 12:00 AM
Forum Contributor
 
DesertRatTom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: United States
First Name: Tom
Posts: 17,101
 
Default

@furboo Too tired to reply intelligently tonight, and tomorrow is buy a 735 day. But in general, I just don't think there is clear evidence for man made climate change, certainly not sufficient data to warrant spending vast amounts of money for what even the backers call an insignificant reduction in CO2, while ignoring the issue of pollution and maybe, particulates.
Cherryville Chuck likes this.

The more I do, the less I accomplish.
DesertRatTom is offline  
post #50 of 64 (permalink) Old 03-04-2017, 10:44 AM
Registered User
 
furboo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Country: United States
First Name: Rob
Posts: 544
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRatTom View Post
@furboo Too tired to reply intelligently tonight, and tomorrow is buy a 735 day. But in general, I just don't think there is clear evidence for man made climate change, certainly not sufficient data to warrant spending vast amounts of money for what even the backers call an insignificant reduction in CO2, while ignoring the issue of pollution and maybe, particulates.
DW735? You'll love it! It's not cheap, but I would HIGHLY recommend getting a shelix cutter head for it.

I know you were tired, but I would say much of the 3-5 trillion number you quoted before is for mitigation (e.g., protecting coastal areas). We'll likely have to pay that whether climate change is man made or not...communities already are. A minuscule sliver of that amount would be for R&D for climate change.

I was also very surprised by the assertion that climate models have no predictive capability. For one thing, I believe some prominent scientists predicted back in the 1980's where we are now. There were certainly error bars on those predictions, and maybe they just got lucky, but this is documented. Also, current models are run through "hindcasting" and do a decent job. I'm a little familiar with this, and admit bias, because my expertise is in huge computer simulation of physics models. The little I've done with climate is working with a climate scientist (an Australian post-doc, no less) who is currently trying to apply one of my mathematical methods for fluids to ocean dynamics. It's not working, yet Again, I probably know less than some of you about actual climate physics...I'm knowledgeable in niche areas of fluid dynamics, radiation transport, and applied mathematics. Climate is just one application, and we've demonstrated these models do very well for other applications. Physics is physics, and if you assert computer models don't work for one application, you're implying that they don't work on any. I can tell you that the evidence they work on other applications is overwhelming. But I would also admit that there are limitations and faults, and climate no doubt has unique challenges.

Another item I didn't address is Chuck's concern with models not being able to predict ice ages or the Viking warming. First, I don't know the specifics here, but the climate scientists I do know say we really don't the very long term effects of our man-made perturbation to the climate. It very well could kick us into an ice age that we otherwise would not have had. Climate is obviously very nonlinear. Second, predicting something in the future is only as good as the accuracy of your initial conditions (ICs...for example, the temperatures at every point on earth, including the oceans). I suspect the uncertainties in ICs for the pre-Viking era would dominate any prediction that happened in the Viking era. But that's just an educated guess. Finally, current climate models certainly will be less accurate the longer in the future they are asked to predict. I believe the argument is that they're accurate enough to predict dire consequences in a short enough time period, say a few decades from now, to have some reliability. But if you run them for centuries, all bets are off. I believe ice ages typically occur more over much longer periods.

I also didn't address Tom's confirmation bias concern (a nice way of saying "following the herd"). There certainly is confirmation bias, but it also works both ways. Those who doubted climate change in the 80's often continue to doubt it; that's one reason of many I'm more skeptical of older climate skeptics, regardless of their stature. They likely stuck their neck out before the science was in and now refuse to budge from their position, because of confirmation bias, coupled with their "god-like" personas.

As I said before, the argument recently has shifted. Only a decade or so ago many were saying that there was NO warming. Now that claim only comes from the very fringe of the fringe, such as conspiracy theorists. I don't have arguments for, nor am I really interested in discussing climate effects with, those who believe there's a vast conspiracy. That's not a scientific discussion.

Rob
furboo is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Router Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome