Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

Jump to new
DwZkcOFWoAIWNy-.jpg


no problems here huh !!

Larry Hamilton‏ @ichiloe Jan 8
Replying to @el_nino_waves @UCSUSA
I find this graph striking. It was not what we expected.
 
the above was an American survey

and


IGS 2019 Wpg‏ @IgsWpg Jan 8
The International Glaciological Society (IGS) will hold the next International Symposium on Sea Ice in Winnipeg, MB, Canada August 19-23, 2019. Please pencil the dates in your calendar, and encourage your colleagues/students to do the same. Registration will begin April 2019

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

National Snow and Ice Data Center‏ @NSIDC Jan 8
Antarctic sea ice is in record-low territory for this time of year, but the cause isn't crystal clear.
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/01/...ord-low-territory-again-and-nobody-knows-why/
Maddie Stone
Jan 5, 2019, 7:00pm
⋅
 
rederob said:
They are the processes which lead to the research being presented for peer review. You have confused the practice of science with the attainment of knowledge.
Click to expand...
I have piles of "peer reviewed" studies in different fields, namely, Equine distal biomechanics, hoof capsule morphology and physiology, equine exercise physiology, and related fields.

Most of them aren't worth a pinch of goat shxt precisely because of a lack of these two crucial steps... absolute junk.

Peer review may examine the integrity of the study (sometimes), but it does not examine the veracity of its conclusion.

Thisis precisely the mistake so many in my field make, thinking peer review makes a study somehow gospel. It does nothing of the sort.
 
wayneL said:
Peer review may examine the integrity of the study (sometimes), but it does not examine the veracity of its conclusion.
Click to expand...
These are logically linked.
If you are engaged in a field where you think you can offer better evidence to justify a different conclusion why are you sitting back?
 
rederob said:
These are logically linked.
If you are engaged in a field where you think you can offer better evidence to justify a different conclusion why are you sitting back?
Click to expand...
Conducting science is an involved, time cinsumung and expensive process, with little opportunity to monetise the result of my particular interest.

Consequently it is the purview of British Fellowship applicants, research veterinarians or mercantile interests.

An acqaintance of mine has been researching the problem of equine laminitis his whole career without ever unlocking the secret to preventing it (while still providing *much very valuable research <one of the few who do it properly>). If he was not in the employ of UQ, there is no way he could have done it.

And this is the problem where I see parallels with climate science. So much research is conducted with a mercantile or philosophical agenda that all research is to be regarded with suspicion.

I'm not saying *all resaerch is tainted, in case someone goes all Cathy Newman in me, but much of it is demonstrably subjective in its conclusion.
 
wayneL said:
And this is the problem where I see parallels with climate science. So much research is conducted with a mercantile or philosophical agenda that all research is to be regarded with suspicion.
Click to expand...
Skepticism is the bedrock of science, so when properly carried out the best we can know based on evidence is from science.
Those who continue to deny science do what you are doing.
 
wayneL said:
An acqaintance of mine has been researching the problem of equine laminitis his whole career without ever unlocking the secret to preventing it (while still providing *much very valuable research <one of the few who do it properly>). If he was not in the employ of UQ, there is no way he could have done it.
And this is the problem where I see parallels with climate science. So much research is conducted with a mercantile or philosophical agenda that all research is to be regarded with suspicion.
Click to expand...
In climate science there are very few mercantile opportunities, whereas in fields related to medicinal practices a breakthrough can be literally worth a fortune.
Gore and Plimer on the other hand, with no climate science credentials, show how preaching to the gullible can be financially rewarding.
However, whenever either of these two make claims which cannot be substantiated, they are drawn over the coals - and rightly so.
The beauty of today's world is that most of us can, if we are interested enough, go to source documents and see how what people claim to be the case stacks up against the evidence.
Thereafter, as an earlier post showed, ideological grounds rather than reason can play a significant role in convincing them about what they believe to be true.
These forums, despite (I am presuming) few if any being professionally engaged in climate science, allow posters to test their knowledge rather than their faith.
 
For the benefit of those lacking awareness of the meaning of the word "science". It is derived from the latin word "scienta" which means "knowledge".
It just so happens that dictionaries of the English language offer the same, or similar, definition, alongside alternative usages compatible with the "knowledge" theme.

Hence my reason for gravitating to the perception that some posters to this thread were, almost certainly, operating according to another definition, (whether their chosen definiton/s is/are specialised, elitist, personalised, exotic, jaundiced, jargonised or perhaps alien to the English language, is a matter upon which I am still unclear).

I trust this makes my reason for seeking clarification from those repeatedly including the word within their postings.
 
Struzball said:
I don't think it's a hoax, I think it's entirely political. Scientists can't do science without money.
Somebody has to be willing to pay them for some reason.
Climate change is the "in" thing these days, so there's alot of incentive to study it (research grants $).
Any sensible scientist would get in on it. They might even find out something useful. Who wouldn't want to know more about our climate?
Just so happens that geologists can make a good living doing their science to help mining companies make lots of money. So they usually don't get too caught up in the whole climate change thing. Until climate change research/politics interferes with their ability to make money. i.e. mining is evil.
Then they may be motivated to write books etc to say this climate change thing is a bit blown out of proportion.
Click to expand...
As with most things, sell the story and let the rest happen.
The one good thing to come out of this whole debate IMO is, the change to renewables will happen a lot faster, than if it was left to happen by market forces.
Human induced climate change may be right, it may be wrong, but it is bringing about a lot of technological change and advancement.
The only down side IMO, is if the emotional agenda overtakes the technical reality.
 
cynic said:
For the benefit of those lacking awareness of the meaning of the word "science". It is derived from the latin word "scienta" which means "knowledge".
It just so happens that dictionaries of the English language offer the same, or similar, definition, alongside alternative usages compatible with the "knowledge" theme.
Click to expand...
It's more likely that you are the only one reading here who is confused.
I have yet to see you present anything here of scientific merit where you also give your views, and there are literally tens of thousands of published works relating to climate that you could choose from.
 
rederob said:
It's more likely that you are the only one reading here who is confused.
I have yet to see you present anything here of scientific merit where you also give your views, and there are literally tens of thousands of published works relating to climate that you could choose from.
Click to expand...
That may well be true according to your chosen definition of the word "scientific".
rederob said:
They are the processes which lead to the research being presented for peer review. You have confused the practice of science with the attainment of knowledge.
Click to expand...
If the practice of science isn't performed for the purposes of knowledge acquisition, then I must again ask that you provide your chosen definition of the word science, because your postings have made it evident that your personal definition does not seem to comply or conform with common English usage, (as is evidenced via reference to dictionaries of the English language.)
 
cynic said:
That may well be true according to your chosen definition of the word "scientific".

If the practice of science isn't performed for the purposes of knowledge acquisition, then I must again ask that you provide your chosen definition of the word science, because your postings have made it evident that your personal definition does not seem to comply or conform with common English usage, (as is evidenced via reference to dictionaries of the English language.)
Click to expand...
Do you enjoy watching yourself repeat ad nauseum on a matter that is well and truly resolved in the science community?
When science is linked to by posters, it has been carried out by people who use the scientific method. This fact seems to escape you. You do not appear to be particularly competent.
 
rederob said:
Do you enjoy watching yourself repeat ad nauseum on a matter that is well and truly resolved in the science community?
Click to expand...
In order to answer that question I would first need to understand what is actually being asked.
Without knowing your chosen definition of the word "science", I cannot be expected to know the community to which you refer.
When science is linked to by posters, it has been carried out by people who use the scientific method. This fact seems to escape you. You do not appear to be particularly competent.
Click to expand...
That helps narrow it down just a little, however, still a couple of things remain unclear.

When you say "carried out", are you intending that as a colloquialism for the word "performed", or was it intended to mean the literal "extraction" of something from within somewhere?

There's a reason further clarification is required here. The colloquialism interpretation would imply that "science" has been defined as a verb of sorts (i.e. a doing word, e.g. "consume","consider" ), whereas the latter, literal interpretation, treats it as a noun (i.e. a naming word, e.g. "food","idea"). So a person might consume(verb) some food(noun). Or that person might consider(verb) an idea(noun).

A chef might have "carried out"(performed) the cooking of some food, subsequent to that food having been "carried out"(extracted) from the refrigerator.(Note that in this example the context resolves the ambiguity of the phrase "carried out" demonstrating two distinct meanings, one literal, and the other colloquial. Unfortunately, contextual resolution of this ambiguity doesn't seem to feature in your usage.)
Alternatively, this may be a simple misunderstanding, where your "carried out" reference was simply intended to mean "performed scientific research". If so, please confirm.

I am presuming that linkage by posters isn't intended for inclusion in your science definitional criteria.
If I am mistaken in aforesaid presumption, please let me know, because at this point, I feel I must say, I have well and truly exceeded my annual quota of astonishment from others, so may as well allow a few extra onto the pile, (and to think-we're barely half way through January!)

I also note that the "science" definition you offer happens to be contingent upon people operating in accordance with the "scientific method". Like the word "science", I suspect that my understanding of the "scientific method" might also differ from yours.

Is the following video's depiction of the scientific method, compatible with your understanding of the concept?:


If not, then I will regretfully also need to ask for your definiton of "scientific method" in order to understand the meaning of your posts to this thread.
 
Joules MM1 said:
DwZkcOFWoAIWNy-.jpg


no problems here huh !!

Larry Hamilton‏ @ichiloe Jan 8
Replying to @el_nino_waves @UCSUSA
I find this graph striking. It was not what we expected.
Click to expand...


I have read through all the posts since yesterday, this one from Joules I really like (I will get to some of Bas' links when I have time, sorry Bas don't yell at me if I am a bit slow in response, I try my best).

I actually didn't know the difference in the two extremes of the US definition of Liberal and Conservative, now I am so much the wiser. (I love learning stuff!)

So as I see it, the Conservatives in the US are the Prepper types who "ain't gonna trust no-one no how and I am going in my off-road-all-terrain to my hidden cabin with all my buried gold and firearms and freeze dried food and cans and solar panels and wait for armi...geddin.

The Liberals are sort of the Polar opposites who think govmint will solve all their problems and trust whatever govmint says and we cayn't have too much govmint cos we love our country and trust our govmint and whatevr they say is trooo. Gdsavemerca.

Two extremes of the same thing, dumbfcuks!

It was very interesting to see where the Moderates stood on the various issues.
 
cynic said:
copied below with my comments in red
Click to expand...
In order to answer that question I would first need to understand what is actually being asked. This is clearly very challenging for you, so I will assist.
Without knowing your chosen definition of the word "science", I cannot be expected to know the community to which you refer. The practice of science defines what science is and it's also a profession understood by all competent people to include scientists. Again, competent people would know that scientists can be aggregated with their peers into a science community. These are easy concepts to grasp for most people.

When you say "carried out", are you intending that as a colloquialism for the word "performed", Would it help if "did" was used? I suspect not. or was it intended to mean the literal "extraction" of something from within somewhere? It seems you have real difficulty with very simple words. "Extraction" is a process which can be done, carried out, or performed. I realise you are confused, but try to keep meanings simple and in context. So I shall repeat, the practice of science defines what science is. Scientists carry out scientific work which is something which should not need explaining.

There's a reason further clarification is required here. The colloquialism interpretation is a straw man argument you want to introduce and is wholly irrelevant would imply that "science" has been defined as a verb of sorts I agree that a person who, like you, appears to be incompetent, might draw that conclusion. "Science" is a thing, which makes it a noun. (i.e. a doing word, e.g. "consume","consider" ), whereas the latter, literal interpretation, We do not interpret where a matter is clear. treats it as a noun (i.e. a naming word, e.g. "food","idea"). So a person might consume(verb) some food(noun). Or that person might consider(verb) an idea(noun). You are totally deficient here and need to educate yourself to get up to scratch.

A chef might have "carried out"(performed) try "done" the cooking of some food, subsequent to that food having been "carried out"(extracted) try "taken" from the refrigerator.(Note that in this example the context resolves the ambiguity no, your examples are an abuse of the meaning of words of the phrase "carried out" demonstrating two distinct meanings, one literal, and the other colloquial These distictions are unique to you. Competent people use language which clearly explains what occurred. Unfortunately, contextual resolution of this ambiguity doesn't seem to feature in your usage.) I cannot write as poorly as you so you wasted a paragraph.
Alternatively, this may be a simple misunderstanding, if there is a misunderstanding then it lies with your inability to grasp basic concepts and use language in an intelligible manner. where your "carried out" reference was simply intended to mean "performed scientific research". If so, please confirm. I confirm that I have take some time to show that you are not competent to present anything meaningful.

I am presuming There is no need to "presume" that linkage by posters isn't intended for inclusion in your science definitional criteria. You must be the only person here who cannot work out that a link to scientific undertakings from scientists is science.
If I am mistaken if you create straw men, I will keep burning them in aforesaid presumption, please let me know, My suspicion is that you will gloss over my every word and carry on with your nonsense because at this point, I feel feelings are not relevant I must say, I have well and truly exceeded my annual quota of astonishment these are issues of interest to you, but are of no relevance to science. from others, so may as well allow a few extra onto the pile, (and to think-we're barely half way through January!) I will see if I need to be bothered replying to your future nonsense, as despite me asking for contributions of ANY scientific nature, I suspsect you will continue to be oblivious.

I also note that the "science" definition you offer I have never offered one happens to be contingent upon people operating in accordance with the "scientific method" given that one who does not use the scientific method in their work would not be doing science it is likely that a competent person would understand that adopting the scientific method would lead to a scientific outcome.. Like the word "science", I suspect that my understanding of the "scientific method" might also differ from yours. It is wholly irrelevant what you personally understand or more probably do not understand, as it has no impact on what happens. The scientific method is well understood by those who practice science, and the work that emanates is "scientific" in nature.
Is the following video's depiction of the scientific method, compatible with your understanding of the concept?:


If not, then I will regretfully also need to ask for your definiton of "scientific method" in order to understand the meaning of your posts to this thread. You should see someone capable of educating you to a level where you can be meaningful.
Your contributions here appear farcical.
 
Edison Looks to Shift the Blame for California Mudslides
By
Edvard Pettersson
January 19, 2019, 10:47 AM GMT+11
  • Utility alleges city, county inadequately maintained basins
  • Edison says local government should share in any liability
Edison International said much of the damage from the mudslides that swept through the coastal town of Montecito last year was the result of poorly designed and maintained debris basins for which local governments are responsible.

The parent company and its Southern California Edison Co. utility filed a cross-complaint Friday against the City and the County of Santa Barbara, among other public entities, saying that a substantial part of liability for the damages should be shifted to government entities responsible for the inadequate infrastructure.


Edison is blamed for the mudslides because the company’s equipment may have ignited the wildfires that led to them.


“With this cross-complaint we seek to ensure that there is a comprehensive review of the role many parties may have played in the large and tragic losses suffered by the community during the Montecito mudslides,” Edison said in a statement.

“It is well known that the Montecito area has always been at high risk for mudslides and debris flows,” the company said. “We believe that city, county and state governments, including flood control, water and transportation agencies, failed to ensure that Montecito’s infrastructure was adequate to reduce the impact of such natural disasters.”




Lawyers representing the public entities in the lawsuit didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Edison’s cross-complaint.

Mud Ravages Seaside Haven for Berkshire’s Munger, Oprah Winfrey

Edison is facing more than 75 lawsuits, claiming that the utility is liable for the Montecito mudslides on Jan. 9, 2018. On that day, the first rainstorm of the year hit the fire-scorched mountains above the town and mud and boulders came crashing down, overwhelming creek beds and debris basins. More than 20 people reportedly died in the disaster and a preliminary report estimated the property damage at $177 million to $204 million.


Montecito homeowners blame Edison for the disaster because they believe the Thomas fire that raged in the mountains the previous month, which destroyed much of the vegetation that would have held the soil together during the winter storm, was caused by the utility’s power lines.
https://www.bloomberg.com//news/art...lame-for-california-mudslides?srnd=markets-vp


....and then we have the opportunistic propaganda from the Liberal GroupThink.

See Everything Bad About Climate Change in a Single California Town
Montecito is coming back to life this morning. The 9,000 person town to the east of Santa Barbara has been empty since Tuesday, when mandatory evacuations forced residents out of their homes for the fifth time in four months.

This week it was a channel of tropical moisture called the Pineapple Express, dumping bands of intense rain and triggering flash floods throughout Southern California. In January it was a once-in-a-200-year storm that dropped half an inch of water in five minutes, unleashing massive mudslides that ripped houses from their foundations and killed 27. In December it was the deadly Thomas Fire that incinerated 280,000 acres—the largest wildfire in California history.

To some, Montecito might just seem like a town hit by a string of superlatively bad luck. But to people crunching the numbers it looks less like an outlier and more like an inevitability of climate change. If you want to see what California looks like in the future, you don’t need a crystal ball. You just need to hop on the 101 and drive until you hit Montecito.

Of course, you’ll have to wait until the weather clears up. For the last few days, a plume of tropical moisture carrying as much water as the Mississippi River has been wringing out between four and nine inches of water along the coast and in the foothills. According to Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California Los Angeles, that’s nothing unusual. In fact, it’s what he would call a “textbook “atmospheric river. So why all the fuss? “It’s not the strongest atmospheric river we seen in a long time,” says Swain. “But it’s aimed directly at these burn scar regions which are incredibly vulnerable to flooding and debris flows.”
https://www.wired.com/story/monteci...t-climate-change-in-a-single-california-town/
 

Similar threads

basilio
Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?
220 221 222
Replies
4K
Views
301K
basilio
basilio
Top