Page 160 of 366 FirstFirst ... 60110150156157158159160161162163164170210260 ... LastLast
Results 2,386 to 2,400 of 5480
  1. #2386
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    ^^^ Bear sows keep their cubs away from the boars because they do kill and hurt cubs, but I've not heard of the boars making habit of eating the cubs. I've understood it's done to get the sows to breed sooner. Not sure about all bears, but am pretty sure it applies to all American bears.

  2. #2387
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    ^^^ Hehe. So do you agree with the idea that long lists of scientists who agree make consensus, and in turn, prove the theory to be true?

    Do you consider this a scientific method, a political display, or something else?
    My clear point was you brought up consensus and labeled the statement of one out of 1700 as an indication of "crap". So perhaps you might first weigh in instead of asking me questions.

    Never mind, I hear the complaints coming of not answering your questions even though you rarely answer mine as well as even more rarely address actual points, such as the one I made earlier: Is .05% proof of "consensus of scientists crap"?

    Here's political (and timely considering the polar bear article title)....
    FoxNews
    Scientist 'Pressured' to Defend Climate Research

    More than 1,700 scientists in Britain agree to sign a statement defending the "integrity and honesty" of global warming research, but at least one alleges he felt pressured to do so.
    One scientist told The Times of London he felt pressure to sign. "The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming," he said.
    The original TimeOnline piece that FoxNews pulled from (so two Murdoch news outlets, both supportive outlets of denying the science, with no Fox notice that it is from the same organization, and more importantly the usual "some people say" anonymous "journalism" designed to create question without substantiation)...
    Top scientists rally to the defence of the Met Office

    The Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furore over stolen e-mails.
    One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work.
    and in case you missed it...
    One scientist told The Times he felt under pressure to sign. “The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming,” he said.
    A statement in response to public opinion, since nothing has been proven to discredit the abounding studies, nothing, unless you also believe in anonymous participants like JeffID or construction managers calling themselves amateur scientists (in that case, there is apparently no debate available other than to agree to strongly disagree)...


    Now, let's look at the original statement and explanation:

    Statement from the UK science community

    10 December 2009

    On behalf of the UK Science Community, the Met Office today announces the response of this community to the ongoing questioning of core climate science and methods.

    The Met Office has co-ordinated this united statement, gathering over 1,700 signatures in just four days. The list includes the personal responses from over 100 institutes across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This tremendous response affirms our confidence in the science, and reinforces the immediacy of the challenge and the critical nature of the discussions at Copenhagen.

    John Hirst, Chief Executive Met Office
    Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist Met Office
    And the actual wording of the piece that was signed by scientists representing many fields and institutions...
    Statement from the UK science community

    10 December 2009
    We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity.

    That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.
    The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that ‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal’ and that ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations’.
    (1700 signatures follow)
    Perhaps I would be kinder to Murdochs broadsheets, but after looking at the "some people say" and wording associated with the hacked emails designed to make people think some conspiracy or actual premeditated doctoring of information designed to come to a conclusion, I'll take a look at some of the other news feeds...

    Scientists defend climate research



    More than 1,700 scientists have signed a statement to defend global warming research.

    The petition has been organised by the Met Office in the wake of the stolen emails row.

    The experts became concerned after climate change sceptics seized on material taken from servers at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit to claim researchers have been manipulating evidence to support a theory of man-made global warming.

    The statement signed by the scientists said: "We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities."

    The move comes as representatives from 190 countries are gathered in Copenhagen for crucial UN climate change talks.

    A Met Office spokesman confirmed a report in The Times that John Hirst, its chief executive, and Julia Slingo, its chief scientist, wrote to 70 colleagues on Sunday asking them to sign "to defend our profession against this unprecedented attack to discredit us and the science of climate change".

    They asked them to forward the petition to colleagues to generate support "for a simple statement that we... have the utmost confidence in the science base that underpins the evidence for global warming".

    The University of East Anglia has appointed Scottish civil servant and former principal and vice-chancellor of the University of Glasgow, Sir Muir Russell, to head an independent review into the email allegations.

    The investigation will look at the leaked email exchanges to see if there is any evidence of manipulation or suppression of data which would call into question the research findings of the centre.

    The centre's director, Professor Phil Jones, has said he will stand down from the post while the independent inquiry takes place.
    So dutch, I view the petition as defensive, the science as substantial, and after having the opportunity to read a take where the issue of what "some people say" isn't blown into the lede or a news source having made daily entries to manufacture the public "furor" over a cherry picked an incomplete hack distributions, which I think makes your posted item very political. I also still don't think the signing of this petition is "consensus of scientists crap" because "somebody said" they felt pressured. How about you?

  3. #2388
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    ^^^ No, I don't think the signing of this petition is "consensus of scientists crap" because "somebody said" they felt pressured. I think its not a very good reflection on scientists when they use lists of fellows in agreement to make a point of consensus as proof.

  4. #2389
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    ^^^ No, I don't think the signing of this petition is "consensus of scientists crap" because "somebody said" they felt pressured. I think its not a very good reflection on scientists when they use lists of fellows in agreement to make a point of consensus as proof.
    Fine, then we are in better sync than I thought. The science stands for itself. Do you also reject the various lists of those simply signing a non-consensus?

  5. #2390
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    NW OHIO
    Posts
    1,680

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Fine, then we are in better sync than I thought. The science stands for itself. Do you also reject the various lists of those simply signing a non-consensus?
    Okay, MMGW is real and soon cats and dogs will be sleeping together My "proof": OTOC and Dutch almost have something approaching agreement on someting

  6. #2391
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Fine, then we are in better sync than I thought. The science stands for itself. Do you also reject the various lists of those simply signing a non-consensus?
    I accept the "non-consensus" lists as evidence that the consensus lists are not what they are portrayed to be, a consensus and therefore proof of "settled science". I don't see the "non-consensus" lists as any sort of scientific proof any more than the consensus lists. I do see them, however, as evidence that there are unresolved scientific questions of major import that are not being pursued appropriately.

  7. #2392
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    I accept the "non-consensus" lists as evidence that the consensus lists are not what they are portrayed to be, a consensus and therefore proof of "settled science". I don't see the "non-consensus" lists as any sort of scientific proof any more than the consensus lists. I do see them, however, as evidence that there are unresolved scientific questions of major import that are not being pursued appropriately.
    I wasn't aware of any consensus lists other than the bulk of scientific study.

    But in this light, you do not accept the list of 1700 as a voice regarding the negative public opinion reaction in not taking in the actual issues of the hacked emails?

  8. #2393
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    But in this light, you do not accept the list of 1700 as a voice regarding the negative public opinion reaction in not taking in the actual issues of the hacked emails?
    I don't understand the question.

  9. #2394
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    I don't understand the question.
    You seem to accept the list of sceptics as proof, but not the list of those defending the science. I'm the one not understanding.

    That, and I wasn't aware of a list that set up the thinking regarding science and the consensus of warming/man's influence. Only that the bulk of scientific studies show support regarding the high probability that man has influenced climate over that of natural causes. Which seems to be what those 1700 signed.

  10. #2395
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Crazy AZ USA
    Posts
    3,516

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    I wasn't aware of any consensus lists other than the bulk of scientific study.

    But in this light, you do not accept the list of 1700 as a voice regarding the negative public opinion reaction in not taking in the actual issues of the hacked emails?
    If there is one thing you should have from a scientific community before you dictate trillion dollar "emergency" policies to afflict the world with....

    It's one thing when you know you're going to be hit by an asteroid. It's another when you haven't proven sh*t....
    "We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government....

    Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business."

    William Jennings Bryan.

  11. #2396
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia, USSA
    Age
    46
    Posts
    13,825

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by AeroSim View Post
    If there is one thing you should have from a scientific community before you dictate trillion dollar "emergency" policies to afflict the world with....

    It's one thing when you know you're going to be hit by an asteroid. It's another when you haven't proven sh*t....
    QFT!
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

    Edmund Burke

    RIP PCPER TLR
    7-14-19

  12. #2397
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    You seem to accept the list of sceptics as proof, but not the list of those defending the science. I'm the one not understanding.
    See here:
    I don't see the "non-consensus" lists as any sort of scientific proof any more than the consensus lists.
    Please explain, after reading that, how in hell I can seem to accept the list of sceptics as proof of anything other than what I clearly stated... evidence that there are unresolved scientific questions of major import that are not being pursued appropriately.
    That, and I wasn't aware of a list that set up the thinking regarding science and the consensus of warming/man's influence.
    I'm not getting you here. Did anyone mention lists that set up thinking of any sort or is this a new thing you're bringing up?
    Only that the bulk of scientific studies show support regarding the high probability that man has influenced climate over that of natural causes.
    You're back to making a quantity of arguments argument. Not very scientific.

  13. #2398
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)


  14. #2399
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,978

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    I think we should sacrifice a climate change activist every day.

    It's the only way to appease the gods.

  15. #2400
    Joined
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    5,171

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post


    this is the only argument that i've seen that did not look to be potential ••••••••... from either side.
    Max Plank: "A new scientific truth does not
    triumph by convincing its opponents and making them
    see the light,
    but rather because its opponents eventually die"
    Arthur Shopenhauer: "Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized.
    First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is opposed. Third, it is regarded as self evident."
    Martin Niemöller:
    "When the Nazis came for the communists,
    I remained silent;I was not a communist.
    When they locked up the social democrats,I remained silent;
    I was not a social democrat.When they came for the trade unionists,I did not speak out;
    I was not a trade unionist.When they came for the Jews,
    I remained silent;I wasn't a Jew.When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •