When "all the scientists" were wrong .

Discussion in 'Science' started by Josephwalker, Feb 15, 2020.

  1. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How many examples would satisfy you? If I took the time and effort to find my old post on this where half a dozen scientists said their papers only agreed with one small part of AGW and they were falsely counted as in the column of AGW being the primary cause of warming even though they vehemently disagree with that would you change your tune and admit the Cook study is cooked up numbers and complete BS? If yes I'll make the effort if no I won't bother.
     
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm far more interested in percentages. The number doing climate related research is large.

    I want a study, like the Cook study or the others that attempt to answer the same question.

    I know people have attempted to disqualify the Cook study. You might cite such an effort.

    But, the I think the question is whether there is a credible study that shows any substantially different results by using superior methodology.

    Also, I'd point out that Cook was quite a while back. Continued climatology research results have moved more strongly toward human contribution being significant. Back at the time of the Cook study there were still those unsure that Earth is warmig!
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  3. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I will happily lay money on those half dozen “scientists” are among those known to be funded by big oil
     
  4. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So here it is again.

    Sample #1


    "Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

    Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
    Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."

    Sample #2

    "Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

    Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
    Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).

    I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper."


    Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?
    Shaviv: "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW.

    More samples here.
    https://www.technocracy.news/nasa-p...f-climate-scientists-agree-on-global-warming/
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2020
  5. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I usually use the example of when "all of science" believed in Eugenics. If not for the decades of time removed, AGW could be it's kissing cousin....
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  6. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Very true. So, given that understanding, should we base political policy on it? If it's "wrong" why enforce draconian measures on the off chance then that it is correct? That truly is the argument. I put it to you as simply as possible. If the Sun does something that effects the earth, there isn't a single thing that man can do for itself to survive. If, for example, the sun flamed out tomorrow, all the CO2 in the ecosphere couldn't over come that.

    The real question is why this never seems to matter to those who are the ones advocating for the entire overhaul of our economies on the off chance then that what we know about climate change is definitive enough to then implement these changes. At some point, the very nature of the elite would demonstrate to you and everyone else, that what they are really getting at is that the masses are the problem that they fear, and even though they would restrict access of the masses to cheap energy and freedom, they themselves would still expect that they wouldn't abide by those same restrictions. Watch the glitterati fly the globe today on private sets, or traverse oceans on private yachts while they lecture everyone else on our intransigence to give up a fraction of the energy that they themselves consume.
     
  7. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Josephwalker likes this.
  8. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Science and understanding are never a black % white, zero sum issue. It should always be considered in an issue along with everything else. No one advocates the overhaul you complain of, the talking point mentality is not helpful.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  9. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I advance the new green deal. Where air travel is eliminated in 11 years. Then what? Swim? And if planes aren't allowed, and if ocean transport isn't allowed, then what? So this "no one advocates the overhaul" is either ignorant or just plain dishonest...
     
  10. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Have A Nice Day:)
     
  11. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Renewable, carbon-neutral fuels solve those problems.

    But in two posts you will pretend like you don't know that and continue making the same bogus arguments.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2020
    WillReadmore likes this.
  12. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Really? How? Identify the "carbon neutral fuels" that replace jet fuel and marine diesel.... The fantasy is just that. A fantasy that suggests that either of these two vital ingredients in our economy are in any where near prime time ready, or available.
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolute rubbish.

    Eugenics is how plant and animal species have been improved over time. It's why we have the food products we have today. It's basically evolution with human decision making as the "survival" criterion.

    Whether that is applied to humans is PURELY an issue of ethics and morality.

    That's not a question of some scientist being "wrong" about science. It's about some scientist being wrong about ethics/morality.
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ignoring science is just plain stupid. It's the vey best truth we have concerning how our universe works.

    You talk about "off chance". But, that is already taken care of, as for any important result there is clear error analysis. Scientists SAY when it is an "off chance". Also, for something as important as climate chaange there are huge numbers of scientists around the world, checking the results that are obtained.

    And, please remember that ALL change requires communication, negotiation, and explanation that involves travel.

    Today, we have politicians traversing the nation. We even have TRUMP doing that with our public funds, regardless of the fact that he has no opposition in the primary.

    There is overhead in leadership and in education. It's not free.
     
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One mistake here is that you aren't even asking the right questions.

    Science does NOT tell us we need to reformlate jet fuel or marine diesel. Those may be options and those options may have costs that are too high based on some criteria.

    Let's remember that the majority of new electric energy is coming from the clean energy sector. Let's remember that car manufacturers are moving away from fossil fuel. Let's remember that the cheapest energy is from conservation - insulation is far cheaper than heat, California and others are ready to pay for fossil fuel cars that have lower automobile emissions due to fuel formulation and mileage (with auto manufacturers agreeing).

    So, we are moving. And, your attempts to find foolish "solutions" should be embarrassing.
     
  16. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You should attempt to be honest.

    That post did not just "re-review" Cook.

    It had a number of separate studies that happen to confirm that science overwhelming accepts anthropgenic warming is the primary cause of the change we see.
     
  17. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is actually foolish is that you simply ignored the examples. Perhaps we have some ability to generate electricity from what you term "clean" sources, but 1) the production of those sources are far from "clean", 2) their availability is still a small fraction of the grid, even though it is expanding, wind and solar don't represent a large portion of production yet, 3) Electric cars are still not exactly "clean" as they consume energy from the grid that is mostly coal and or LNG powered, and their own production isn't either "clean" or CO2 neutral... 4) air travel has zero alternative options at this point. 5) the majority of international commerce is carried out over oceans meaning marine diesel which, again, has no alternatives.

    Science as you then frame it, is entirely useless if it also doesn't produce alternatives that are viable to sustain what the needs of the world actually are, isn't it. So, even though you claim that "the majority of new electric energy is "clean", you're woefully overstating the facts, and that's entirely dishonest.

    One thing I would remind you of, the production of insulation itself is actually not very good for the environment, but all the insulation in the world doesn't keep you warm unless you have a system that runs on something that generates the power to produce the heat or cooling that you yearn for.

    Your response is something a child would write. It lacks the basic understanding of what the world is capable of, or how it fundamentally works. It smacks of optimistic ignorance, but that's as much as anyone should take from it. And that's exactly why the green new deal is one of the most laughable attempts in public policy history to so shamelessly inflict utter economic ruin because it's promoters are so laughably ill and mis-informed.
     
  18. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then you should read that study methods of each, where they clearly state that they did, in fact re-review the Cook method. But then, you didn't actually read them, did you?
     
  19. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Blaming science for not providing solutions is just a fundamental misunderstanding. Science identifies how this universe works. Engineering figures out solutions to those problems.

    Nobody has proposed that all energy has to come from sources other than fossil fuel. So, you can propose all sorts of cases where replacement may not happen, but that doesn't mean anythng.

    The "clean" term isn't that well defined. I think it is mostly used in reference to greenhouse gas emissions.

    The use of today's power to build clean energy would be interesting only if the total production and usage budget was a net failure. And, that is clearly not the case. We would build cars regardless of whether clean energy were available, for example.

    Clean energy is growing. Get used to it.

    Great ad hom, though!
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Neither of those posted links focused on re-reviewing Cook in any way other than addressing the same question.

    The firest gives a long list of highly reputable scientific organizations from around the world that address the ISSUE, not the Cook study.

    The second is simiilarly focused on the question and gives a number of good links as well.

    Besides, focusing on Cook as if that one study is the issue is jjustifiable only as red herring generation by those who KNOW they are wrong.
     
  21. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    34,260
    Likes Received:
    8,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet the global warming crowd attempts to use turn of the century data all the while pretending it's as accurate and reliable as data collected today...
     
  22. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    New methods of collecting data have consistently supported data collected in the past.

    That includes our move to measurements made by satellite. It includes our significantly increased measures of ocean temperatures, gasses, biota, sea level, etc. Science is doint what science is supposed to do.

    It would be a problem if these measures were contradictory.
     
  23. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,531
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Soooo.... who figured out they were wrong? Was it a phrenologist who checked out the bumps on geologist's heads? Did spiritualists perform seances to discover the truth? Was the truth found if the Bible? No, it was scientists themselves that figured out they were wrong.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  24. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually it was just some average Joe that came up with the flood theory but regardless of that it shows you how "all the scientists" can all be wrong for a very long time.
     
  25. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,531
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually you quoted that J Harlen Bretz was a geologist (emphasis is mine).

    The scientific community can be wrong, but it is the willingness to change that is the hallmark of science, unlike religion which punishes those that question it or try to change it.
     

Share This Page