Global Cooling. The sky is falling.

[Alan Klein]

Or that all the pollution will affect only the people on the other side of the hill.

There's cattle on both sides of the climate change question.  It's hard to find honest pro and con appraisals of the situation.  Each side is posturing and cherry picking.  That's a hell of a way to make public policy. 

[Rob C]

There's cattle on both sides of the climate change question.  It's hard to find honest pro and con appraisals of the situation.  Each side is posturing and cherry picking.  That's a hell of a way to make public policy.

That's  always been the way to make political policy; if you don't, you end up with everybody admitting to thinking the same, and then how do you decide who gets the plumb? Can't let reality spoil a good pitch!

[Alan Goldhammer]

Interesting that both Russ and Alan Klein totally mis-read what I wrote.   What one cannot ignore is the laws of physics and chemistry along with the accumulating data that demonstrably shows climate change is going on.   There was a huge storm that blew  ashore in Oman and up into Saudi Arabia  the other day dropping  record amounts of rain.   Just another example of weird stuff happening.   

I also don't accept Alan Klein's  comment about  bias.   Scientists look at data and the process of constantly correcting based on new information.   If b you don't accept the scientific method then you better have adv alternative ready.

[Alan Klein]

Interesting that both Russ and Alan Klein totally mis-read what I wrote.   What one cannot ignore is the laws of physics and chemistry along with the accumulating data that demonstrably shows climate change is going on.   There was a huge storm that blew  ashore in Oman and up into Saudi Arabia  the other day dropping  record amounts of rain.   Just another example of weird stuff happening.   

I also don't accept Alan Klein's  comment about  bias.   Scientists look at data and the process of constantly correcting based on new information.   If b you don't accept the scientific method then you better have adv alternative ready.

Unfortunately, climate research scientists and producers making nature films for TV for the most part can't get funding unless they're on-board with global warming and man's negative effects on animals.  So most of the work is about the "bad" effects of warming, pollution and man "destroying" nature.  It's become almost a "cultural" thing.  Every nature program you watch drops comments about how bad "man" is destroying the environment and so forth.  It's become a badge of honor to be against your own species. 

So the bias may not be in any one study.  Rather, it's the accumulation of studies that present a one-side viewpoint.  There's hardly any studies on the other side because the powers that be are not interested in presenting any benefits of warming.  And if there are studies showing the benefits, they're buried on page 47 of the newspaper or not published at all. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Scientists look at data...

I am more and more appalled by this religious treatment of people involed in scientific fields. Even the term “scientists” is increadibly nonchalant, as it lumps everyone into one single, uber-human category.

So, let’s try this exercise: let’s replace the word “scientists” with “doctors.”

Here it goes: “Doctors are phenomenal God’s creatures, infallible, perfectly trained, perfectly educated, absolutely ethical, never cheating, making mistakes, defrauding, etc.”

See where I am going with this? Scientists are human. They, just as doctors, or any other profession, can be good and can be bad, highly conscientious or downright evil. Cheating, falsifying, chasing money, wheather for themselves or research.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Here it goes: “Doctors are phenomenal God’s creatures, infallible, perfectly trained, perfectly educated, absolutely ethical, never cheating, making mistakes, defrauding, etc.”

Sounds fair enough to me. True too of lawyers, of course; and doubly so of those who are both

Jeremy

[Alan Goldhammer]

I am more and more appalled by this religious treatment of people involed in scientific fields.

Here it goes: “Doctors are phenomenal God’s creatures, infallible, perfectly trained, perfectly educated, absolutely ethical, never cheating, making mistakes, defrauding, etc.”

See where I am going with this? Scientists are human. They, just as doctors, or any other profession, can be good and can be bad, highly conscientious or downright evil. Cheating, falsifying, chasing money, wheather for themselves or research.

I don't think that I ever equated science with religion.   As one whose undergraduate and graduate degrees are in chemistry and an also an atheist,  I think you are trying to confound what goes on in scientific research.   It is inherently self correcting.   I have also known three scientists who were caught publishing fraudulent papers.  One was even a co-author with me on a review chapter in a well known book series.   He tried to sneak in some unpublished data that was later found to be fraudulent and in refused to let it be included in a review chapter that focused on the published literature.   I think I have some credibility here.   You cannot indict the entire system because of a small number bad actors.   (The same thing is applicable to photography where we know certain images are either falsely claimed or have been manipulated.

Alan Klein's comments  about 'documentary' shows also misses the point.   While they may rely on data,  they also represent the perspective of the documentarian and may or may not be biased.   It is far more difficult to exhibit bias in peer reviewed published research as anyone who has published or reviewed papers.

[Rob C]

I am more and more appalled by this religious treatment of people involed in scientific fields. Even the term “scientists” is increadibly nonchalant, as it lumps everyone into one single, uber-human category.

So, let’s try this exercise: let’s replace the word “scientists” with “doctors.”

Here it goes: “Doctors are phenomenal God’s creatures, infallible, perfectly trained, perfectly educated, absolutely ethical, never cheating, making mistakes, defrauding, etc.”

See where I am going with this? Scientists are human. They, just as doctors, or any other profession, can be good and can be bad, highly conscientious or downright evil. Cheating, falsifying, chasing money, wheather for themselves or research.

That's why I don't believe in any religion, but firmly believe in a God as a form of overarching authority/grand-planner/whatever you prefer to use to describe something we have, since man appeared, felt to exist within our own souls and heads. I'm told there are no atheists in a falling aircraft, but that's a hard one to prove, although the sentiment is not difficult to grasp; well, I would have thought that until a day or two ago when I realised that a lot of simple things turns out to be difficult to grasp...

;-)

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It is far more difficult to exhibit bias in peer reviewed published research as anyone who has published or reviewed papers.

Indeed, and that makes it worrisome that some people prefer to reject the peer-reviewed, finally published, and frequently cited objective and independently repeatable observations, and only offer conspiracy theories as an alternative.

Not all that worrisome if it's just by individuals who are free to chase their own delusions, but very worrisome if governments adhere to fact-free 'truths' to make policy that will negatively affect lots of people. Also worrisome if the sheeple blindly support such governments, instead of calling them and/or their financial backers to order. Critical thinking seems to be in short supply.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

...

Alan Klein's comments  about 'documentary' shows also misses the point.   While they may rely on data,  they also represent the perspective of the documentarian and may or may not be biased.   It is far more difficult to exhibit bias in peer reviewed published research as anyone who has published or reviewed papers.

No one reads scientific journals and research papers except other scientists and researchers.   The popular press through newspapers, magazines, and TV documentaries are what most people get their news and beliefs formed. 

Bad news sells.  Everyone wants to read about the dog that bit someone or better than that the story of the person who bit the dog.  Everyone want to see the lumber companies chopping down the forest laying it bare rather than the part where they re-plant for future growth and subsequent harvesting or how that wood is used to make homes for people to shelter in safely rather than live bare in the cold.   Documentarians follow the money.  So all we get is a Pablum of negative bias about man.  If Tolstoy called his book, "Peace and War", it would have flopped. 

[Rob C]

Indeed, and that makes it worrisome that some people prefer to reject the peer-reviewed, finally published, and frequently cited objective and independently repeatable observations, and only offer conspiracy theories as an alternative.

Not all that worrisome if it's just by individuals who are free to chase their own delusions, but very worrisome if governments adhere to fact-free 'truths' to make policy that will negatively affect lots of people. Also worrisome if the sheeple blindly support such governments, instead of calling them and/or their financial backers to order. Critical thinking seems to be in short supply.

Cheers,
Bart

That is the statement of the week!

Go outwith this thread into photography, and it only gets worse.

;-)

[Alan Klein]

Indeed, and that makes it worrisome that some people prefer to reject the peer-reviewed, finally published, and frequently cited objective and independently repeatable observations, and only offer conspiracy theories as an alternative.

Not all that worrisome if it's just by individuals who are free to chase their own delusions, but very worrisome if governments adhere to fact-free 'truths' to make policy that will negatively affect lots of people. Also worrisome if the sheeple blindly support such governments, instead of calling them and/or their financial backers to order. Critical thinking seems to be in short supply.

Cheers,
Bart

It's the people who blindly follow so-called scientific theories that are the sheeple.  It's harder to go against a trend and be an independent thinker and have abuse dumped on you.   It's easier to quote some journal to prove how smart you are to other people. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Indeed, and that makes it worrisome that some people prefer to reject the peer-reviewed, finally published, and frequently cited objective and independently repeatable observations, and only offer conspiracy theories as an alternative...

No, the alternative is real life, not your religion.

Since you keep posting those verses from your bible, I have to keep reposting rebuttals:

This blind belief in the truthfulness of academic research is outright scary. As I said many times, science is the new religion for some.

How many studies that took years to research, were peer-reviewed, and published in respectable publications, were found to be faulty and debunked either contemporaneously or a bit later?...

Further to the above, an eye-opener article about "research" (emphasis mine):

https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/the-corruption-of-evidence-based-medicine-killing-for-profit-41f2812b8704

The 2 most prestigious journals of medicine in the world are The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine. Richard Horton, editor in chief of The Lancet said this in 2015

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue”

Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of NEJM wrote in 2009 that,

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor”

So here’s a damning list of all the problems of EBM:

Selective Publication
Rigged outcomes
Advertorials
Reprint Revenues
Bribery of Journal Editors
Publication Bias
Financial Conflicts of Interests

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

So the bias may not be in any one study.  Rather, it's the accumulation of studies that present a one-side viewpoint.

Alan, these studies don't do "viewpoints". They collect evidence that cumulates to either support or refute facts.

Evidence, the 3 year amount of rain that fell in 1 day in Oman supports the hypothesis that the amounts of extreme precipitation will increase due to the larger capacity of warmer air to hold moisture.

Evidence, last night was the warmest recorded in May in my Country since the beginning of systematic recording in 1901.

There's hardly any studies on the other side because the powers that be are not interested in presenting any benefits of warming.

Is that an assumption based on 'feelings', or do you have research that shows this? There's of course also the possibility that there are not that many 'benefits' that outweigh the negative consequences.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

That is the statement of the week!

Go outwith this thread into photography, and it only gets worse.

;-)

Ah, but then we can call it Art ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Alan, these studies don't do "viewpoints". They collect evidence that cumulates to either support or refute facts.

Evidence, the 3 year amount of rain that fell in 1 day in Oman supports the hypothesis that the amounts of extreme precipitation will increase due to the larger capacity of warmer air to hold moisture.

Evidence, last night was the warmest recorded in May in my Country since the beginning of systematic recording in 1901.

Is that an assumption based on 'feelings', or do you have research that shows this? There's of course also the possibility that there are not that many 'benefits' that outweigh the negative consequences.

Cheers,
Bart

I'm curious about Oman.  Did all that rain help grow vegetation?  Were there any positive results of the rain?  Was it reported in the article?  Or was the article presented in a way to show only some negative effect of global warming?


Maybe the article should have read: "Three Years of Rain in One Day Makes Oman's Barren Desert Bloom."


Of course, that would upset the climate change enthusiasts who would cancel their subsription to the newspaper.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I'm curious about Oman.  Did all that rain help grow vegetation?  Were there any positive results of the rain?  Was it reported in the article?  Or was the article presented in a way to show only some negative effect of global warming?

Growing vegetation is rather hard in the desert, and if there was a fertile topsoil, it was flushed away.

The only benefit seemed to be free fish in the supermarket:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unraBJHe2ss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX2EUMjZETU

Not really enough to offset the devastation.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Growing vegetation is rather hard in the desert, and if there was a fertile topsoil, it was flushed away.

The only benefit seemed to be free fish in the supermarket:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unraBJHe2ss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX2EUMjZETU

Not really enough to offset the devastation.

Cheers,
Bart

First off, you're assuming that this Cyclone was caused by Global Warming caused by man.  That's a knee jerk reaction I've been pointing out.  If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Second, the storm just happened two days ago.  There's not going to be much positive results in so short a time.  Also, you're confusing vegetation with farming.  I didn't say farming would increase, only that vegetation would increase in the desert.  It's possible that farming would increase too if rains continue as the desert takes on other qualities to support farming.  I was out in the American desert a few weeks ago in New Mexico, Utah and Arizona.  I saw how the Navajo Indians used water to irrigate desert areas so farming could be done.  The Israelis have done that considerably.  Once you get the water, all sorts of good things can happen.  But if you're mind is into negativity, you'll miss the positive results. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

 Alan - you are really posting a bunch of nonsense.   As  Bart noted the flooding was disastrous and there won't be any positive results.   It's like saying all the rain from last year's Texas hurricane was a good thing!!

I will leave it up to Bart to respond to n further posts on this thread.   It's just not  worth the time for me  to continue punting or what is science and what is myth.   I'm sure  this thread  will eventually peter  out and rise again like a phoenix.

[RSL]

That's why I don't believe in any religion, but firmly believe in a God as a form of overarching authority/grand-planner/whatever you prefer to use to describe something we have, since man appeared, felt to exist within our own souls and heads. I'm told there are no atheists in a falling aircraft, but that's a hard one to prove, although the sentiment is not difficult to grasp; well, I would have thought that until a day or two ago when I realised that a lot of simple things turns out to be difficult to grasp...

;-)

Rob, I've been in a couple falling aircraft. Fortunately they didn't fall all the way. But I can tell you that panic keeps you from thinking about God or anything else except getting the aircraft under control.