disputed FACTS - Page 7 - Router Forums
 370Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #61 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 08:41 PM
Forum Contributor
 
DesertRatTom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: United States
First Name: Tom
Posts: 16,685
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timbrframr View Post
Some might say "infamous" is a better description of Curry: see sourcewatch.

The denier handbook is full of easily-addressed propaganda that people keep repeating over and over hoping attrition over scientific integrity will win. They're tired and old.....

The peer review process exposes one's work to the whole global community of experts who would like nothing more than to rip apart someone else's work. From my time in academics, I know this to be true, so when papers stand the test of time you know it's not for lack of attempts to discredit them. The assertions from the denier camp however are shown over and over to fail even the simplest of scientific scrutiny and are often supported (like Judith Curry!!) by the oil and gas industry. As she has shown, denying climate change makes you good money. And with the billions spent on denial propaganda, there's a lot to be made in it! Follow the money indeed.....


Who is denying climate change? Climate changes, as has been stated repeatedly in this string. The questions now are about is it really man made, and is there really anything to be done about it? Have you forgotten that the original "hockey stick" was shown to be a little trickery of statistics, and agreed in upon in a series of emails by academics in Great Britain and a few other major universities.

A few billion dollars in propaganda as you described is a pittance compared to the $10 - $16 TRILLION dollars proposed to be spent when the only result was admitted to be almost zero change. According to a NASA atmospheric researcher who spoke to our group a few weeks ago, we really don't even know the effect of sun spots and solar impact as Earth goes through it's eliptical orbit. No model has accurately predicted climate events so far, and right now, we know that CO2 increase has actually promoted forestation.

Nitrogen in solid form as in fertilizer does indeed pollute the oceans and other waterways, but it is also allowing us to feed most of the 7 billion inhabitants of the Earth. Would you like to pick the people who starve without that fertilizer? It is surely a problem, but like switching completely away from hydrocarbon fuels, it has a tremendous downside for billions of people stuck in poverty. Will you choose which of them will go without any modern wonders, like heat, light, realistic transportation?

The Paris Accord so vaunted by man-made climate change junkies, completely failed to address the ever increasing pollution and CO2 output of China, India, Indonesia, the LDC countries in Africa in particular, but LDCs all over the earth.

Why would you trust the fairy tale believers who proposed and back the Paris Accord to set out your, or anyone's future. There well may be some breakthroughs in power generation, hydrogen and fusion, for example, but fusion power has been a science toy that has eaten tens of billions and still can't be contained well enough to utilize. Hudrogen is incredibly unstable and difficult to store and move around. Want to be in a hydrogen powered vehicle during one of the 200 car pileups? So, we'll plant trees in the mean time, but in the US West, water is short, so they burn and when they do, they pump massive amounts of CO2 and real pollutants and particles into the atmosphere. So maybe there's reason to doubt the fairy tale of solving the issue by throwing money at it.

Curse those who think that shouting down critical thinkers by accusing them of being "climate deniers," because the accusers are shutting down the alternatives that MUST be explored in order to come up with something that's affordable without cutting off 2 or 3 billion humans from all the good stuff of life.

Meanwhile, we are all pretty dependent on fossil fuels and the like for now. What's wrong with taking time to figure out something that really works for everyone. Or, we could just spend ourselves into oblivian and join the impoverished all over the planet who haven't had the good fortune to have energy and food enough to lift them out of back breaking, life shortening starvation and grinding poverty.

Are YOU ready to live cheek by jowl in packed slums like Rio or Bombay? Or are you really happy to have that be the fate of billions, so long as it's not you who suffers?

The people posting in this string who might be accused of being deniers most certainly are not that at all. They're practical, have reason to doubt a PR juggernaut that has propose zero realistic solutions and only seems to aim at spending vast amounts of money, some of which goes to the so-called researchers and vast amounts up for grabs to corporations, who so far have offered no serious solutions.

Last thing: Scientific integrity. Agreement is not scientific at all. And one truth of science is that you cannot PROVE anything with science, you can only disprove or demonstrate that you cannot disprove the null hypothesis, should you by some miracle happen to state it accurately. The man who taught me that signed off on thousands of doctoral research papers, (63 page CV, single spaced in elite (10pt) type, and was on the jury for two scientific and clinical journals. If agreement were science, we'd still think the Sun was spinning around the Earth.

Strong letter to follow. So far as I know there is no denier handbook. And the critical books on the topic are generally put down only by the advocates who have much to gain by shutting the opposition down.

The more I do, the less I accomplish.

Last edited by DesertRatTom; 11-02-2019 at 08:56 PM.
DesertRatTom is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 11:06 PM
Moderation Team
 
Cherryville Chuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
First Name: Charles
Posts: 15,262
 
Default

Well said Tom. This following link is a smoking gun at least for those of us who live in Canada but it is most likely indicative of other governments, certainly ones who promote the UN's theory of things. It's our so-called climate Minister explaining to some people at a bar that if you yell something loud enough and often enough that people will believe you. Sadly far too many do. https://www.spencerfernando.com/2019...-to-canadians/ This isn't an original idea. Hitler's propaganda minister was about 75 years ahead of her.

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  
post #63 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-03-2019, 12:00 AM
Registered User
 
JFPNCM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: United States
First Name: Jon
Posts: 3,874
 
Default

I continue to be intrigued by the “non wood working” discussions on this forum that are always educational and conducted with rational decorum. Well done.

Jon
JFPNCM is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #64 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-03-2019, 12:07 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Country: Canada
First Name: Brent
Posts: 149
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
You'll want to pay particular attention to Freeman when he says "I helped create the climate model being used and I thought it was important to add in factors for accelerated plant growth due to higher CO2 levels but (they or the person in charge) didn't think it was important". You can also go back to one of my first posts and see the graphs that Tony Heller prepared from the original raw data and see how both the data has been manipulated. His best video is just under 13 minutes but at about 9 minutes into the 51 minute video of him speaking to a group of Washington State senators he'll go through his credentials at at the end of his presentation at about the 45 minute mark you'll hear him reply to one of the senators as to why his graphs differ from pro climate change scientists.

If your wife is a chemist she may have a little familiarity with black body and white body theories so let's imagine an experiment using those two theories. You are in a room with a floor, ceiling , and 3 walls that all exhibit black body characteristics, i.e. they reflect no energy at all. Every electromagnetic radiation that strikes them is absorbed. The fourth wall is composed of a ratio of 2456 pixels .001" in size to 1 pixel that exhibits white body characteristics, i.e. all the electromagnetic radiation that strikes it is reflected 100%. You walk into the room with a flashlight and shut the door behind you. Would enough light be reflected for you to be able to tell which wall had the white body pixels mixed in? Pretty good chance the answer would be no. That's a fair analogy of what that one CO2 molecule in every 2457 is capable of.


Ah yes, I knew it wouldn't be long before Freeman Dysan came along!

So I'm confused....do you like what he says or not? Because he believes in ACC and that CO2 from burning fossil fuels is causing it. But I thought you said that was all a bunch of nonsense?

Dysen didn't help create THE climate model being used, because there is no "the" model.....there are many models, and yes the CO2 fertilization effect is well understood, observed and studied. The effects are limited by other limiting agents in the plant growth equation (nitrogen, water etc) so isn't the answer to all the problems.

Tony Heller (or is it Steve Goddard?) , the guy with no training or publications in the field..... The raw data compared to the cleaned and corrected data show more warming. So if the devious, conspiring climate change scientists were trying to fudge the data to manufacture warming trends, the must have had their slide rules upside down! Look up Berkeley Earth...they were skeptics that looked at the data with fresh eyes and ended up agreeing with NASA. Their data and methods are all publicly available.

You black box analogy is flawed...but regardless, your buddy Dysan says the concept is valid! So do thousands of others......so I don't care what people with no training in the field think "looks" impossible.....I'll take observational science with years of supporting data and many independent replications.
timbrframr is online now  
post #65 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-03-2019, 12:11 AM
Registered User
 
RainMan 2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Country: Canada
First Name: Rick
Posts: 16,184
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JFPNCM View Post
I continue to be intrigued by the “non wood working” discussions on this forum that are always educational and conducted with rational decorum. Well done.
I’m just here for the beer

I don’t always insulate , but when I do .
Ok ,I never insulate
RainMan 2.0 is online now  
post #66 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-03-2019, 01:06 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Country: Canada
First Name: Brent
Posts: 149
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRatTom View Post

Who is denying climate change? Climate changes, as has been stated repeatedly in this string. The questions now are about is it really man made, and is there really anything to be done about it? Have you forgotten that the original "hockey stick" was shown to be a little trickery of statistics, and agreed in upon in a series of emails by academics in Great Britain and a few other major universities.
When most people say climate change today, they mean Anthropogenic climate change, and given the context, I think you know that's what I meant.....

No, the graph was not shown to be a trickery of statistics....it has been reconstructed independently by many others to show the same thing! Don't listen to the propaganda.....many people all around the world looking at the question independantly have done the same assessment and came up with the same results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRatTom View Post

A few billion dollars in propaganda as you described is a pittance compared to the $10 - $16 TRILLION dollars proposed to be spent when the only result was admitted to be almost zero change. According to a NASA atmospheric researcher who spoke to our group a few weeks ago, we really don't even know the effect of sun spots and solar impact as Earth goes through it's eliptical orbit. No model has accurately predicted climate events so far, and right now, we know that CO2 increase has actually promoted forestation.
Yes, we need to spend our money in the most effective way but denying science and dividing people is not going to help with that. That old line about models not working is another tired old one. Nothing as complicated as the global climate will ever be modelled to laser beam precision, but it's not necessary to show we have to do something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRatTom View Post
Nitrogen in solid form as in fertilizer does indeed pollute the oceans and other waterways, but it is also allowing us to feed most of the 7 billion inhabitants of the Earth. Would you like to pick the people who starve without that fertilizer? It is surely a problem, but like switching completely away from hydrocarbon fuels, it has a tremendous downside for billions of people stuck in poverty. Will you choose which of them will go without any modern wonders, like heat, light, realistic transportation?
Why are you asking me about nitrogen fertilizer? It was stated before that it wasn't a pollutant, and I said it was. Much of the issues can be dealt with by employing better management practices so I don't thing eliminating its use is required.....why so extreme?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRatTom View Post

The Paris Accord so vaunted by man-made climate change junkies, completely failed to address the ever increasing pollution and CO2 output of China, India, Indonesia, the LDC countries in Africa in particular, but LDCs all over the earth.

Why would you trust the fairy tale believers who proposed and back the Paris Accord to set out your, or anyone's future. There well may be some breakthroughs in power generation, hydrogen and fusion, for example, but fusion power has been a science toy that has eaten tens of billions and still can't be contained well enough to utilize. Hudrogen is incredibly unstable and difficult to store and move around. Want to be in a hydrogen powered vehicle during one of the 200 car pileups? So, we'll plant trees in the mean time, but in the US West, water is short, so they burn and when they do, they pump massive amounts of CO2 and real pollutants and particles into the atmosphere. So maybe there's reason to doubt the fairy tale of solving the issue by throwing money at it.
Well Paris wasn't about pollution....that's probably why it didn't talk about pollution....

There's no question the solutions will be expensive, but much less than the costs of doing nothing (they've done the math) and with a concerted and coordinated global effort it'll be entirely doable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRatTom View Post
Curse those who think that shouting down critical thinkers by accusing them of being "climate deniers," because the accusers are shutting down the alternatives that MUST be explored in order to come up with something that's affordable without cutting off 2 or 3 billion humans from all the good stuff of life.

Meanwhile, we are all pretty dependent on fossil fuels and the like for now. What's wrong with taking time to figure out something that really works for everyone. Or, we could just spend ourselves into oblivian and join the impoverished all over the planet who haven't had the good fortune to have energy and food enough to lift them out of back breaking, life shortening starvation and grinding poverty.

Are YOU ready to live cheek by jowl in packed slums like Rio or Bombay? Or are you really happy to have that be the fate of billions, so long as it's not you who suffers?
The problem isn't criticising proposed solutions, that's very welcome and required, the problem is suggesting we do nothing because of assertions that ACC is a hoax. The solutions will require a concerted effort and cooperation, and as long as there is no drive for that because of the denial effort, it's just getting later and later....

It's discouraging to me that people have so little faith in the potential of our global scientists and engineers to come up with solutions that won't cause global starvation or other such awfulness. People seem convinced that the only way we can avoid a terrible tragedy is to cause another tragedy.....why so little faith when we sent a whole bunch of people to the moon and back 50 years ago with less computing power than found in a flip phone?
timbrframr is online now  
post #67 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-03-2019, 02:20 AM
Forum Contributor
 
DesertRatTom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: United States
First Name: Tom
Posts: 16,685
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timbrframr View Post
When most people say climate change today, they mean Anthropogenic climate change, and given the context, I think you know that's what I meant.....

No, the graph was not shown to be a trickery of statistics....it has been reconstructed independently by many others to show the same thing! Don't listen to the propaganda.....many people all around the world looking at the question independantly have done the same assessment and came up with the same results.

Yes, we need to spend our money in the most effective way but denying science and dividing people is not going to help with that. That old line about models not working is another tired old one. Nothing as complicated as the global climate will ever be modelled to laser beam precision, but it's not necessary to show we have to do something.

Why are you asking me about nitrogen fertilizer? It was stated before that it wasn't a pollutant, and I said it was. Much of the issues can be dealt with by employing better management practices so I don't thing eliminating its use is required.....why so extreme?

Well Paris wasn't about pollution....that's probably why it didn't talk about pollution....

There's no question the solutions will be expensive, but much less than the costs of doing nothing (they've done the math) and with a concerted and coordinated global effort it'll be entirely doable.

The problem isn't criticising proposed solutions, that's very welcome and required, the problem is suggesting we do nothing because of assertions that ACC is a hoax. The solutions will require a concerted effort and cooperation, and as long as there is no drive for that because of the denial effort, it's just getting later and later....

It's discouraging to me that people have so little faith in the potential of our global scientists and engineers to come up with solutions that won't cause global starvation or other such awfulness. People seem convinced that the only way we can avoid a terrible tragedy is to cause another tragedy.....why so little faith when we sent a whole bunch of people to the moon and back 50 years ago with less computing power than found in a flip phone?


You are correct, I don't have much faith in global scientists. If a model's predictions fail to coincide with what actually occurs, then it is incomplete or flawed. And all of the predictions over a long period of time have been incorrect. In the field I know best, there is a specialty that produces amazing outcomes for patients, children with learning problems in particular. But there is scientific agreement among a competing specialty that says it's all bunk. But in recent years, neuro science has verified and revealed the brain processes through which the disputed therapies produce such profound changes. But the dispute goes on and on and millions of children are doomed to live mediocre lives because the authorities with MDs after their name are in agreement that it doesn't work and parents listen to them. Gee, that sounds like a description of the Denier nonsense.

I'm a journalist by training and spent a decade in newsrooms. So I'm pretty skeptical when authority is cited and lay people are routinely branded as incompetent to criticize. Smells fishy to me. There are lots of people who spend considerable effort to learn a subject and apply it. In fact that is the very process by which most scientists approach a new area of theory or research. Physics is a perfect example of this.

That's why I'm skeptical of science when agreement is asserted.

But none of that compares to the loot, the booty at stake. And the fact is that you're really telling me to bend over and pony up the dough buster, because no matter what, we're going to dump massive amounts of money on this issue. Lots of people in high places are going to take every dime you can squeeze out of me and every person reading this string. And you can't really tell us specifically what you're going to blow it on. And yes, that is a characterization. But when you look around at who has actually reduced emissions, you wind up with a very small number of companies who have redesigned every-day processes and equipment to cut down their emissions. I like practical solutions and have no issue with things that work. But the trillion dollar schemes never contain such realistic, practical solutions.

This is a dollars and cents issue. It has enormous ramifications for humanity and it is extremely complex. And that, to a journalist, is where greed and power come into play. But those thieving politicians and the ones who bribe them are coming after my wallet. Yours too, and they have not made the case that we should pay and pay and pay and pay for a pig in a poke. That is a problem that all of your arguments fail to address, or it seems, even acknowledge. We all know that the price estimates we're hearing will increase as the looters get money to bribe more politicians to raise spending. That's the game. Sure we should do something, but let's hear some real, practical approaches. I planted many trees, but then the politicians set it up so a Canadian investor group gets to charge some of the highest water rates anywhere, so I've had to let much of that die. If things like that occur because of corruption and bribery, then what's to keep it from happening to CO2 wars.

I think I am not alone in not being at all interested in the technobabble. It is meaningless in the face of the corruption we all know exists.
harrysin, DaninVan and Herb Stoops like this.

The more I do, the less I accomplish.
DesertRatTom is online now  
post #68 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-03-2019, 09:19 AM Thread Starter
Honored Member
 
harrysin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Australia
First Name: Harry
Posts: 14,620
     
Send a message via Skype™ to harrysin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timbrframr View Post
A couple of issues here. I mean no offence, but I can tell by some of the things you say, you're not formally educated in the field of atmospheric chemistry or similar fields. To a lay person, things like 420ppm might sound like a pretty low concentration, but really, if you have no idea of the physics of what is happening, you have no capacity to say if it's significant or not. For example, 400ppm concentration is TWENTY times the concentration of Arsenic Pentachloride required to kill you. But since something SEEMS like a low concentration to a lay person, it's ok to think it's safe? I mean if 407ppm is just a "fart in a hurricane" then surely 20ppm would be ok right? Wrong.....you'd be dead.

Obviously it's an extreme example to make a point. The significance of something requires a full understanding of the thing and how it relates to everything it interacts with so concluding it's insignificant based on zero science or understanding is ill-advised. Fortunately, there are thousands of PhD wielding scientists out there who DO understand how this works and can tell us that this is a significant number so we don't have to come to our own conclusions based on....well...not much.

The whole "CO2 lagging temperature" thing is a popular talking point from the denier handbook. However, it has been well addressed in the peer reviewed literature and we know that orbital changes are what trigger warming, but the increase in CO2 concentrations that result from the initial warming is what makes the warming so severe. It acts as a form of feedback loop.
"For example, 400ppm concentration is TWENTY times the concentration of Arsenic Pentachloride required to kill you."

That doesn't seem to be much of an analogy to me, it's like comparing apples with pears.
What strikes me is that like so many "climate scientists" you too are anonymous.

Harry



Nothing but heaven itself is better than a friend who is really a friend. - Plautus






harrysin is offline  
post #69 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-03-2019, 10:01 AM
Forum Contributor
 
Stick486's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Country: United States
First Name: Stick
Posts: 25,529
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harrysin View Post
What strikes me is that like so many "climate scientists" you too are anonymous.
and brand new too
TwoSkies57 likes this.

This would have been the week that I'd have finished chewing thru the restraints...
If only new layers hadn't been added....

Stick....
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
"SNORK Mountain Congressional Library and Taxidermy”
Stick486 is offline  
post #70 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-03-2019, 10:28 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Country: Canada
First Name: Brent
Posts: 149
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stick486 View Post
and brand new too
Came here for the excellent CNC content, got pulled in by the ACC denial "content" .
DesertRatTom and Herb Stoops like this.
timbrframr is online now  
Closed Thread

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