2015 Warmest Year on Record

Northeast Stinger

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,651
Whiskey_Clear said:
http://www.infowars.com/youtube-blocks-polar-bear-explosion/

Not too surprising Google / boobtube would censor contributors they don't agree with.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is just me but I don't always immediately assume there is a conspiracy. Several reputable groups have documented the stress polar bears are under including Columbia University, National Geographic, Alaska wildlife management, WWF and many more.

I think the problem is in how one interprets certain data as well as what data one considers to be significant indicators of problems. The BBC did a good documentary on this. Its pretty easy to find.

There was an international treaty to ban polar bear hunting in 1973 which has caused the number of polar bears to slowly climb from previously critical levels. But that is not the only way to measure the health of the population.
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
Northeast Stinger said:
Maybe it is just me but I don't always immediately assume there is a conspiracy. Several reputable groups have documented the stress polar bears are under including Columbia University, National Geographic, Alaska wildlife management, WWF and many more.

I think the problem is in how one interprets certain data as well as what data one considers to be significant indicators of problems. The BBC did a good documentary on this. Its pretty easy to find.

There was an international treaty to ban polar bear hunting in 1973 which has caused the number of polar bears to slowly climb from previously critical levels. But that is not the only way to measure the health of the population.
Click to expand...

Speaking of conspiracy, have you read the ClimateGate e-mails?
 
Whiskey_Clear

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,486
Hunting is definitely the polar bears biggest risk. Curbing it has seen the growth in their population without doubt. Shrinking ice causing harm? No and it's not even debatable really. Could it cause harm?...well there is the argument but its hypothetical at best and debatable.

When...Time magazine?....published the cover / pic of the polar bear floating on the block of ice....and morons thought the poor bear was stranded on it....I just had to shake my head. Polar bears can swim incredibly far. But that is the kind of ignorance that feeds into much of the alarmism.
 
Whiskey_Clear

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,486
Northeast Stinger said:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
Click to expand...

I find this link to be less than credible / unbiased. And the "independent" investigations cited were anything but. They were from the liberal colleges directly tied to the "scientsts". Or from government agencies with obvious bias currently.

Facts are facts...those emails were direct statements which should be cause for skepticism. They can try to spin it any way they want but those scientists have lost all credibility with me.

On a side note...Utube has developed a reputation for pulling down content they disagree with politically that few reasonable people would find...offensive. The terms of use they use are nebulous in nature.
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
Whiskey_Clear said:
Good lord....the more I read the more skeptical I have to be...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/more-on-the-niwa-new-zealand-data-adjustment-story/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/...-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/

Seems to be questionable science at best and outright fraudulent BS at worst. Yet that is what we are spending hundreds of billions on to combat.
Click to expand...

Fwiw, these are the sorts of reports that led to my position, stated here and elsewhere in this forum. There's just too much lack of transparency and too much adjusting of the data without the ability to assess the adjustments to get at the truth easily.

GT's Judith Curry is an important person in this conversation in my opinion. In 2009, or so, when the ClimateGate e-mails were first released, she talked about the need for greater transparency and recommended her own way of trying to engage skeptics in dialogues. She clearly saw the skeptics as in error. Today, she still seems to operate from within the same point of view, but is apparently less sure of whether the degree of human contribution can be shown to support the strong policy changes. Now, she's being vilified by those on whose side she was on 7 years ago.

What's striking is that the Liberal Fundamentalists are more likely to just assume that she's been bought out and corrupted than to actually look at the data she discusses.
 
Northeast Stinger

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,651
AE 87 said:
Liberal Fundamentalists
Click to expand...
This is where you lose me every time.

I don't mind looking at different viewpoints. I grew up in a family that encouraged this. But to characterize everyone who is on the other side of an argument as either part of a huge world wide conspiracy or that they are part of some religious cult group, just leaves me cold. That is where you lose me every time and I take what you say much less seriously.

Sorry, just being honest.
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
Northeast Stinger said:
This is where you lose me every time.

I don't mind looking at different viewpoints. I grew up in a family that encouraged this. But to characterize everyone who is on the other side of an argument as either part of a huge world wide conspiracy or that they are part of some religious cult group, just leaves me cold. That is where you lose me every time and I take what you say much less seriously.

Sorry, just being honest.
Click to expand...

No worries. I've given the term a specific definition. You just seem to choose to ignore it for some reason.

In previous posts it was made clear that it does not apply to everyone with a different opinion. That you choose to create this straw man rather than responding to the issues raised suggests that you fit the definition, though.

I have offered data. I have offered to discuss data if others start a thread. More data has been posted in this thread, and you responded with a link where those who benefit say they did nothing wrong.

It's okay that you accept their authority by faith just like it's okay that bible fundamentalists accept it by faith.
 
Whiskey_Clear

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,486
Imagine if only one of the Nixon tapes was released....and then Nixon claimed that tape was taken out of context...and then refused to release the rest of the tapes....or claimed the originals were lost but provided doctored copies...
 
Northeast Stinger

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,651
AE 87 said:
That you choose to create this straw man rather than responding to the issues raised suggests that you fit the definition, though.
Click to expand...
There you go again.

I find that on this topic you tend to argue from your premise. Rightly or wrongly you have convinced me that there is no amount of evidence that would ever change your mind. Talk about a fundamentalist.....
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
Northeast Stinger said:
There you go again.

I find that on this topic you tend to argue from your premise. Rightly or wrongly you have convinced me that there is no amount of evidence that would ever change your mind. Talk about a fundamentalist.....
Click to expand...

LOL. You haven't presented evidence. You offer authority which you accept by faith.,

How can I be a fundamentalist on climate change when my position is we can't know for sure because debate is over data?

All I've said is that the hiatus was not predicted by alarmists, so I find their resets less convincing. Also, I actually form my own opinion on e-mails rather than trusting those who profit by alarmism.

Rather than attack me, discuss the data. Or post an opinion about Curry's take on Climategate and the present state of debate.

It's real easy to show you're not a fundamentalist. Discuss the data. Be open minded.
 
Northeast Stinger

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,651
AE 87 said:
All I've said is that the hiatus was not predicted by alarmists, so I find their resets less convincing. Also, I actually form my own opinion on e-mails rather than trusting those who profit by alarmism.
Click to expand...
See, you can't help yourself.

You start with the premise that those who disagree with you are alarmists. Then you throw in conspiracies and secret government plots. You only want to discuss data that is presented in a way that reinforces the position you have already taken.

Frankly, I find you completely closed minded to an open debate on this topic.

But, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and proceed with the idea that you simply have a lot of passion for this topic and you are understandably a little twisted over it because so many people don't take you seriously about it. So, let's do an experiment. I am going to list a group of organizations that have weighed in on the "climategate email" topic or at least have settled on a scientific opinion regarding anthropocentric climate change. You pick out the organizations that you either trust on this topic or that you feel are dealing with it in good faith. Out of 16, surely you can find five or six you can trust to be dealing with this in good faith.

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Meteorological Society
Union of Concerned Scientists
NOAA
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
Penn State University
National Science Foundation
National Geographic
The Weather Channel
Environmental Protection Agency
Factcheck.org
Politifact.org
The Annenberg Foundation
Centers for Disease Control
The U.S. Department of Defense
The American Medical Association
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
Northeast Stinger said:
See, you can't help yourself.

You start with the premise that those who disagree with you are alarmists. Then you throw in conspiracies and secret government plots. You only want to discuss data that is presented in a way that reinforces the position you have already taken.

Frankly, I find you completely closed minded to an open debate on this topic.

But, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and proceed with the idea that you simply have a lot of passion for this topic and you are understandably a little twisted over it because so many people don't take you seriously about it. So, let's do an experiment. I am going to list a group of organizations that have weighed in on the "climategate email" topic or at least have settled on a scientific opinion regarding anthropocentric climate change. You pick out the organizations that you either trust on this topic or that you feel are dealing with it in good faith. Out of 16, surely you can find five or six you can trust to be dealing with this in good faith.

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Meteorological Society
Union of Concerned Scientists
NOAA
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
Penn State University
National Science Foundation
National Geographic
The Weather Channel
Environmental Protection Agency
Factcheck.org
Politifact.org
The Annenberg Foundation
Centers for Disease Control
The U.S. Department of Defense
The American Medical Association
Click to expand...

OK. It seems that I've been unclear. I think open discussion on science to be about scientific data not about opinion of scientists.

That you are framing the question as one of discussing objects of faith is the problem. Which of these do you trust, ie, put your faith in is not a science question.

FYI:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/10/the-52-consensus/
 
Top