| Pages:
1
..
73
74
75
76
77
..
118 |
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3701
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
Too bad your biases prevent you from understanding the difference between lying and changing recommendations based upon further scientific research.
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2422
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Looking forward to 2024
|
|
S,
This is why you always question authority! This guy was brought down by free discussion on the internet. None of which agreed with the established
science.
Lack of integrity is a nice way to say “lies”!
“The president of Stanford University, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, has announced he will resign after concerns about the integrity of his research.
Tessier-Lavigne announced his plans to step down on 31 August in a letter to students and staff on Wednesday.Jul 19, 2023”
Number of exclamation points - 2
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3701
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
Wrong. You are misrepresenting what actually happened. This is exactly the point.
As I said above, "free discussion" by Joe Blow, armchair expert on everything, exchanging misinformation online with other Joe Blows, is not the same
thing as free discission among those who are qualified to speak knowledgeably to whatever the subject may be.
"Questions about Tessier-Lavigne’s scientific work started to emerge on the platform PubPeer, where scientists can discuss and evaluate research
online.
There, commenters like scientist Elisabeth Bik raised concerns as far back as 2015 about images in Tessier-Lavigne’s research that appeared to be
digitally altered."
Scientists talking to other scientists about scientific work.
Not a bunch of man-made climate change deniers with no education or experience in that branch of science spouting their unscientific opinions on
climate change as if they were fact.
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2422
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Looking forward to 2024
|
|
S,
As usual you don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s because pubpeer allows post publication anonymous comments. You have no idea who posts
those comments.
“ The site has served as a whistleblowing platform, in that it highlighted shortcomings in several high-profile papers, in some cases leading to
retractions and to accusations of scientific fraud,[1][2][3][4] as noted by Retraction Watch.[5] Contrary to most platforms, it allows anonymous
post-publication commenting, a controversial feature which is the main factor for its success.[6] Consequently, accusations of libel have been
levelled at some of PubPeer's users;[7][8] correspondingly the website now requires commentators to use only facts that can be publicly
verified.[9]”
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3701
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
Yet you ignore the last line of what you just posted:
"correspondingly the website now requires commentators to use only facts that can be publicly verified.”
Do you not understand how this is not the same thing as unknowledgable people having "free discussion" full of assertions which can't be verified, are
only their opinion, usually based on their pre-conceived biases, but which are presented as if they were facts?
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2422
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Looking forward to 2024
|
|
S,
What you don’t understand is that multiple responsible publications are publishing multiple papers and articles bemoaning the fact that what is
forecast by their sea temperature models is not what is actually taking place and it’s necessary to find out why.
Also consider the large 300’ hole discovered recently in the Indian ocean. A hole caused not by man made anything but by natural variations in the
earth’s gravity field. This discovery that gravity causes large local changes in sea level and smaller local changes in the very ground we stand on,
when measured against an accurate uniform reference is only recently possible. How these changes in elevation grow, shrink and move constantly has
only been possible to track since that accurate uniform reference was created.
The changes caused by these gravity induced dimples in the earth’s surface are far greater than the changes caused by other factors as they (the
gravity dimples) change the actual volume of the oceans without adding to or subtracting water from them.
Put simply taking into account this discovery makes accurate measurements of millimeter changes in the rate of sea level change caused by other
factors a real challenge. It also makes the prior measurements of the rate of change that didn’t take them into account far less accurate.
|
|
|
caj13
Super Nomad
Posts: 1001
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by RFClark  | S,
What you don’t understand is that multiple responsible publications are publishing multiple papers and articles bemoaning the fact that what is
forecast by their sea temperature models is not what is actually taking place and it’s necessary to find out why.
Also consider the large 300’ hole discovered recently in the Indian ocean. A hole caused not by man made anything but by natural variations in the
earth’s gravity field. This discovery that gravity causes large local changes in sea level and smaller local changes in the very ground we stand on,
when measured against an accurate uniform reference is only recently possible. How these changes in elevation grow, shrink and move constantly has
only been possible to track since that accurate uniform reference was created.
The changes caused by these gravity induced dimples in the earth’s surface are far greater than the changes caused by other factors as they (the
gravity dimples) change the actual volume of the oceans without adding to or subtracting water from them.
Put simply taking into account this discovery makes accurate measurements of millimeter changes in the rate of sea level change caused by other
factors a real challenge. It also makes the prior measurements of the rate of change that didn’t take them into account far less accurate.
|
Interesting. You got a citation for those facts - research? I am very interested in reading and digesting it!
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3701
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
You are extremely condescending and seemingly love to mansplain. What makes you think I don't understand that predictions, based on what is known at
the time, are not the same thing as facts, and often turn out to be inaccurate?
Some here seem to believe that predictions about things which don't come to pass, or don't come to pass in the predicted time frame, are the same
thing as lies. And that those who pay attention to predictions somehow confuse them with inevitable facts which they blindly believe. Both notions
which are, of course, untrue.
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2422
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Looking forward to 2024
|
|
S,
Ignorance is more deadly than lies and equally unforgiven by Murphy. The explication is not for you, it’s for others who might be confused by the
climate dogma you post.
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3701
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
The "climate dogma" I post???
Care to give an example?
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2422
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Looking forward to 2024
|
|
S,
Extraordinary predictions require extraordinary proof. Most of the science, if you can call it that, supporting those “end of the world as we know
it this keeps up” require “this to keep up”. To date “this” has failed to cooperate.
The latest in a long line of “thises” is the admitted failure of the ocean to warm as predicted. Then there are the change in the rate of sea rise
models that ignore gravity in their calculations.
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3701
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
I asked you to give examples of "climate dogma" you accused me of posting. You come back with more of your blah blah blah opinions about
"predictions".
You can't find any examples of me posting "climate dogma", because I have only posted facts about what is and has actually happened, not any
predictions.
|
|
|
JZ
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9575
Registered: 10-3-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
This might be the single most important video you will ever watch regarding the Climate Crisis.
[Edited on 8-8-2023 by JZ]
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3701
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
"Single most important video" according to our climate expert JZ. 
It's just one scientist's opinion, which flies in the face of the other 97% of climate scientists' opinions.
"Favourite Climate Myths by Judith Curry
Below are many of the climate myths used by Judith Curry:
Climate myths by Curry What the Science Says:
"Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????"
Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.*
"Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature"
The 'decline' refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.
"IPCC is alarmist"
Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response.
"There is no consensus"
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
* This article was written before 2023 broke previous records.
[Edited on 8-8-2023 by surabi]
|
|
|
JZ
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9575
Registered: 10-3-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by surabi | "Single most important video" according to our climate expert JZ.
It's just one scientist's opinion, which flies in the face of the other 97% of climate scientists' opinions.
"Favourite Climate Myths by Judith Curry
Below are many of the climate myths used by Judith Curry:
Climate myths by Curry What the Science Says:
"Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????"
Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.
"Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature"
The 'decline' refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.
"IPCC is alarmist"
Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response.
"There is no consensus"
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
|
Somehow you missed the entire point of the video. It debunks your 97%.
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 17644
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by JZ | This might be the single most important video you will ever watch regarding the Climate Crisis.
[Edited on 8-8-2023 by JZ] |
John stossel? Same guy who claims that second hand smoke cant kill people. Ya, right. Libertarian wingnut preaching to his fellow wingnuts on the
internet
Jizzy: you seem to study subjects by watching rightwing pundits on youtube, twitter and tiktok. Perhaps your reliance on on social media to learn the
law explains your abysmal failure to pass the bar, eh?
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
caj13
Super Nomad
Posts: 1001
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
He won't even provide a simple link to back up claims he made here, how would you expect him to give an example? Hard to give real life examples
when your "facts" are a bunch of unsubstantiated claims made by people with an agenda
|
|
|
caj13
Super Nomad
Posts: 1001
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by JZ | This might be the single most important video you will ever watch regarding the Climate Crisis.
[Edited on 8-8-2023 by JZ] |
Curry's position on climate change have described it as "neo-skepticism", in that her current position includes certain features of denialism; on the
one hand, she accepts that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide cause warming, and that the plausible
worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic, but on the other hand she also proposes that the rate of warming is slower than climate models have
projected, emphasizes her evaluation of the uncertainty in the climate projection models, and questions whether climate change mitigation is
affordable.
so uh judith - hows those claims of overstated issues going now - based on the current data, turns out the models being "wrong" well they have
actually understated the effects - not overstated it. judith claims are aging like expired milk on a hot day in the sun!
see JZ - thats the problem - science keeps moving forward - keeps collecting and analyzing data - her claims made 10 years ago - well guess what
- all of the new data show she was wrong - see thats the way science works - you make a claim - we will test it - and guess what - your beloved
Judiths claims they aint holding up!
|
|
|
JZ
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9575
Registered: 10-3-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
As she explains, all these "scientists" have an incentive to exaggerate CC.
And those that don't are cast out. To deny those facts would require a lot of putting your head in the sand. The system is financially biased to
only support one outcome.
It takes an open mind to see through all the bs. Have an open mind instead of insulting someone's character.
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3701
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
"New research suggests that the spread of misinformation among politically devoted conservatives is influenced by identity-driven motives and may be
resistant to fact-checks. These individuals tend to prioritize sharing information that aligns with their group identity, regardless of its accuracy."
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
73
74
75
76
77
..
118 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
