Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 28, 2016, 07:38:02 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
96121 Posts in 2315 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: Concerned Citizen
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Science, Culture, & Humanities
| | |-+  Pathological Science
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] Print
Author Topic: Pathological Science  (Read 226794 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8095


« Reply #900 on: April 22, 2016, 12:12:00 PM »

Earth is on brink of a sixth mass extinction, scientists say, and it’s humans’ fault
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/22/the-earth-is-on-the-brink-of-a-sixth-mass-extinction-scientists-say-and-its-humans-fault/
-----------------------------------------------------
Al Gore: Polar Ice Gone in 5 Years, 2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI

John Kerry claims the Arctic will be ice-free by summer 2013

PoliticFact rates this "Barely True" in 2009.  Huh?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/02/john-kerry/kerry-claims-arctic-will-be-ice-free-2013/

In 2011, PolitiFact changed the name of Barely True to Mostly False.  Huh??

Doug rates all of this as pathologically, reality denyingly false, then and now.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8095


« Reply #901 on: May 07, 2016, 03:08:49 PM »

Who knew these predictions would all be false.  Probably everyone who knew the models were wrong, like the designers of the models and the manipulators of the data.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/05/gore-ten-years-later.php

GORE, TEN YEARS LATER   - Steven Hayward, Powerline
Hey, kids—did you realize it’s the tenth anniversary of Al Gore’s Academy Award and Nobel Prize winning movie, An Inconvenient Truth? Michael Bastasch of the Daily Caller has gone back and checked on some of Gore’s near-term predictions and found—spoiler alert!—that lots of them look pretty silly now:

One of the first glaring claims Gore makes is about Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. He claims Africa’s tallest peak will be snow-free “within the decade.” Gore shows slides of Kilimanjaro’s peak in the 1970s versus today to conclude the snow is disappearing.

Well, it’s been a decade and, yes, there’s still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure this out. One can just look at recent photos posted on the travel website TripAdvisor.com.

In 2014, ecologists actually monitoring Kilimanjaro’s snowpack found it was not even close to being gone. It may have shrunk a little, but ecologists were confident it would be around for the foreseeable future.

“There are ongoing several studies, but preliminary findings show that the ice is nowhere near melting,” Imani Kikoti, an ecologist at Mount Kilimanjaro National Park, told eturbonews.com.

Actually that one was easy to knock back at the time, since there’s good data showing the slow retreat of Kilimanjaro’s snow going back well into the 19th century, before Ford and GM built their first SUVs.

Bastasch goes through several more Gore howlers, but I’ll just add one of my own from recent studies. Gore made much of Greenland’s ice sheet melting so rapidly you’d think the continent was a grilled cheese sandwich in a pizza oven. Science magazine reports this week that the interior of Greenland’s enormous ice mass appears to be . . . completely stable. Here’s the University of Illinois’s press release about it yesterday:

Study finds ice isn’t being lost from Greenland’s interior

Scientists studying data from the top of the Greenland ice sheet have discovered that during winter in the center of the world’s largest island, temperature inversions and other low-level atmospheric phenomena effectively isolate the ice surface from the atmosphere — recycling water vapor and halting the loss or gain of ice. A team of climate scientists made the surprising discovery from three years of data collected at Summit Camp, an arid, glaciated landscape 10,500 feet above sea level in the middle of the Greenland ice sheet.

“This is a place, unlike the rest of the ice sheet, where ice is accumulating,” says Max Berkelhammer, assistant professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Berkelhammer is first author on the study, reported in Science Advances, an open-access online publication of the journal Science.

For fans of classic films, here’s my 46-minute rebuttal of Gore’s movie, though it is way out of date now, since it was done before climategate, before the duration of the temperature pause became evident, and before the numerous recent studies concluding that most of the UN IPCC computer models overestimate climate sensitivity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seGyLIrH1-4

And here’s the seven-minute update I did one year later—complete with a Bruce Jenner reference!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nITPIK6cZtE


Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5745


« Reply #902 on: May 08, 2016, 06:12:49 AM »

Doug,

I really don't know who to believe.

Many other places in the news claim just the opposite.

I recently read something about Kilimanjaro's ice cap is clearly disappearing though maybe not as fast as Gore had us believe

Same is true for Greenland.

I have different sources making different claims.  So how the heck can I possibly have any clue?

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8095


« Reply #903 on: May 08, 2016, 10:28:15 AM »

Doug,
I really don't know who to believe.
Many other places in the news claim just the opposite.
I recently read something about Kilimanjaro's ice cap is clearly disappearing though maybe not as fast as Gore had us believe
Same is true for Greenland.
I have different sources making different claims.  So how the heck can I possibly have any clue?

There is warming and there is human caused warming.  The real warming started at the peak of the last ice age.  It started hundreds of years before the industrial age' and the hockey stick, sharp uptick of late theory has been proven false.  The current peak has held 18 years without warming even though CO2 levels are still increasing.  We had a cooling in the 1970s too.  Which means other factors are coming into play.  Factors not factored into the models.

Agreed, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and fossil fuel combustion releases it.  Therefore some warming effect comes from man.  That CO2 came from decomposed plants, fossil fuels, which in turn took it from the atmosphere where it is being returned, not an unnatural process.  These 'high levels' of CO2 we are experiencing measure at 0.4 parts per thousand, not exactly smothering us.  And what is there is enhancing plant life, greening the planet and producing more oxygen for the animal life.  Again, not an unnatural or unprecedented cycle.

The models and forecasters have been off by a factor of about 7 fold.  They don't account for negative feedback effects, and were skewed by the lying and manipulation of the data.  Alarmist politicians, Al Gore, etc. get it wrong by a factor of maybe 100-fold.  

None of the proposed solutions solve anything, they just cause poverty.  

Nuclear is safe and CO2-free, it could power the whole grid and is being ignored, which means no one is serious about this anyway.

Do you know any climate scientists who refuse travel or work summers without air conditioning?
« Last Edit: May 08, 2016, 05:20:59 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37285


« Reply #904 on: May 09, 2016, 02:25:27 PM »

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/09/facts-clear-astrophysicist-soon-of-wrongdoing-while-indicting-journalists-covering-climate-debate/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5745


« Reply #905 on: May 31, 2016, 08:24:41 AM »

This guy and his family have made out like bandits with taxpayer funding of his climate change institute.  Talk about cashing in on government programs.  Whole family are living like 1 %.  Even tax deduction for charity sent to India for Gods sake:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424875/climate-extremist-taxpayer-funded-ian-tuttle
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37285


« Reply #906 on: June 05, 2016, 12:39:45 AM »

No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.
January 27, 2012

Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Corbis

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
Related Video
Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don't believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5745


« Reply #907 on: June 05, 2016, 09:16:04 AM »

What about the theory that the oceans may be absorbing the additional heat?
Or the melting of the glaciers?

I am not disagreeing only I cannot make up my mind as to what to think.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5745


« Reply #908 on: July 07, 2016, 03:10:53 PM »

WE kept hearing how the antarctic ice is melting (maybe it is in the West) but much less about how it is expanding in the East.  The net effect was as far as i was able to read kept in the dark .  Apparently the net is that Antarctic ice is expanding:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0706/Scientists-may-have-solved-a-mystery-Why-is-Antarctic-sea-ice-growing
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8095


« Reply #909 on: July 07, 2016, 04:25:23 PM »

We kept hearing how the antarctic ice is melting (maybe it is in the West) but much less about how it is expanding in the East.  The net effect was as far as i was able to read kept in the dark .  Apparently the net is that Antarctic ice is expanding:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0706/Scientists-may-have-solved-a-mystery-Why-is-Antarctic-sea-ice-growing

Arctic ice is (was) contracting because of global warming.  Antarctic ice is expanding because of global warming.  

The oceans are rising because of the (formerly) melting Arctic ice.  The only ocean not rising is the Arctic Ocean.

Human caused global warming is from the release of CO2 into the atmosphere - CO2 that naturally came from the atmosphere.

Liberals are (were) concerned about the black teenage unemployment rate.  Minimum wage laws (and open border policies) worsen the black teenage employment rate.

Black lives matter is a great liberal cause.  An innocent black baby is four times more likely to be aborted than a white baby.  Whatever.

Liberalism is not really a deep or consistent thought experiment.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2016, 04:40:45 PM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5745


« Reply #910 on: July 07, 2016, 06:42:53 PM »

And every ill now to man, the world is now due to global warming now know as climate change one of our biggest industries to make a fortune from.  Just ask Al when he is not chasing massage therapists around a cubicle like a wolf in heat.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8095


« Reply #911 on: July 08, 2016, 09:11:16 AM »

And every ill now to man, the world is now due to global warming now know as climate change one of our biggest industries to make a fortune from.  Just ask Al when he is not chasing massage therapists around a cubicle like a wolf in heat.

Warming temps in Antarctica cause more snowfall.  But not elsewhere?  Warming doesn't cause more melting too?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Record-snowfall-disproves-global-warming.htm

But snow cover mitigates warming trend.

Antarctic Ice hits new record maximum:
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

The area of North America covered in snow has increased in the last 30 years.  Who knew?

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/snow-ice/snow-cover.html

You heard about this where else, NY Times, MSNBC, nowhere??

CO2 emissions are continuous.  Warming is not.  Is there something else going on here?
Not just the science and the media are biased, google search results too!

The "ever-thickening blanket wrapped around the planet" consists of CO2 levels of one part per 2500, a 0.0004 concentration of atmospheric CO2, just slightly above the minimum in earth's history. 

If CO2 levels were falling continuously instead, plant life, and eventually all life, would cease to exist.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2016, 09:34:51 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5745


« Reply #912 on: July 08, 2016, 10:28:55 AM »

I cannot even browse through my medical readings without being inundated with Climate Change propaganda.  We are even advised to discuss it with all our patients!  What are these people kidding me?  I should discuss climate change on patient's health? Oh you have a cough? Must be climate change.  You have a rash?  Must be climate change.  You are depressed?  Must be the rainy day we had which is of course due to climate change.  You are constipated?  Also climate change.  Allergies bad this year?  Well we know that is man made.  You are overweight.  Obviously that is because the Republicans are blocking a soda sugar tax:

https://www.acpinternist.org/archives/2016/07/presidents.htm
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!