Climate and Weather

[dad4]

Not misinterpreted at all.

Here is an article written by the guy talking about how science publications only look for certain type of articles. And this creates a problem in that it creates a huge incentive to publish what they want. Publishing is key to get more funding.

And the current system as he points out is not one of science inquiry. It is a self reinforcing loop.

We saw the exact same thing durind Covid. You keep pointing to the papers and officials stating this would happen. They did not allow dissenting opinions. This is what we see as it relates to climate change.

As a scientist, I’m not allowed to tell the full truth about climate change

What really should matter isn’t citations for the journals, clicks for the media, or career status for the academics — but research that actually helps society.

nypost.com

It gets misinterpreted as soon as you believe "therefore we can ignore the evidence in what does get published."

Which seems to be where you are.

 

[Desert Hound]

It gets misinterpreted as soon as you believe "therefore we can ignore the evidence in what does get published."

Which seems to be where you are.

The problem is you are advocating not publishing studies that go against the government line.

You and others dont like to see or read about questions, or people pointing out problems with the current theory and offering up their own.

This quite frankly is the position you and the gov/media held during COVID. It is not a rational or a good standard.

We want to see a back and forth. The public shouldnt be fed one line and not be exposed to why the theory may be completely wrong. Especially in light of all the things gov wants to change the economy as it relates to a theory.

It is not in the public interest to not know about other studies and/or opinions from scientists skeptical to the catastrophic global warming theory.

You would think that after the failure of the consensus during COVID one should not just blindly follow along.

But as they say people that dont understand/remember history are doomed to make the same mistakes again.

 

[watfly]

The problem is you are advocating not publishing studies that go against the government line.

You and others dont like to see or read about questions, or people pointing out problems with the current theory and offering up their own.

This quite frankly is the position you and the gov/media held during COVID. It is not a rational or a good standard.

We want to see a back and forth. The public shouldnt be fed one line and not be exposed to why the theory may be completely wrong. Especially in light of all the things gov wants to change the economy as it relates to a theory.

It is not in the public interest to not know about other studies and/or opinions from scientists skeptical to the catastrophic global warming theory.

You would think that after the failure of the consensus during COVID one should not just blindly follow along.

But as they say people that dont understand/remember history are doomed to make the same mistakes again.

You know what is not a good standard? "It's better to be safe than sorry".

Often the "safe" option has known negative impacts, whereas the "sorry" option is more catastrophic, but unlikely.

 

[espola]

The problem is you are advocating not publishing studies that go against the government line.

You and others dont like to see or read about questions, or people pointing out problems with the current theory and offering up their own.

This quite frankly is the position you and the gov/media held during COVID. It is not a rational or a good standard.

We want to see a back and forth. The public shouldnt be fed one line and not be exposed to why the theory may be completely wrong. Especially in light of all the things gov wants to change the economy as it relates to a theory.

It is not in the public interest to not know about other studies and/or opinions from scientists skeptical to the catastrophic global warming theory.

You would think that after the failure of the consensus during COVID one should not just blindly follow along.

But as they say people that dont understand/remember history are doomed to make the same mistakes again.

In that Patrick Brown article you linked, he admits completely that climate change is a real thing happening now. Didn't you read it?

 

[Slobodan]

As I said, you don't know how it works.

If you find something wrong with an article, you can change it, although many articles are either locked because of controversial subject matter or subject to review by a body of volunteer researchers. For the Sahara article in question there is a list of all the changes --

Sahara: Revision history - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and also a talk forum where users can discuss requested changes

Talk:Sahara - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Happy to be of service in furthering your education.

You graduated from University of Wiki. No thanks, professor... I'll pass. And no more tap dancing, please. Your legs have to be exhausted.

I don't know why you find this funny. Your response indicates that you have never read a complete balance sheet, just the press releases.

No. But if I have to choose between NOAA and an orange haired man with a sharpie, I'm trusting NOAA.



I’m curious. What did you think that article was about? It’s a lecture about how to assess integrate multiple different estimates for temperature for years which lack hard data because they predate the invention of thermometers.

I agree it’s a neat topic. I’d be really surprised if you got beyond the fact that the headline contains the word “controversy”.

Calm down, Dad... I know Trump has you all upset. I posted the link because it was the first one that came up. Well, after Wikipedia from Fudd.

I'm just glad you didn't tear an ACL dodging all the posts about how incompetent your libtard party is. Good to see you at full strength.

 

[Slobodan]

I never said you were the one who grabbed a sharpie and did an impromptu hurricance forecast.

That was a different genius. Remember him? Apparently he is facing felony charges in multiple states now.

How many convictions so far? We still waiting on the Russian collusion? How about his taxes? Stormy?

What's the next witch hunt going to be? Taking bribes from other countries? OH WAIT!

Come clean, Papa... how much does it piss you off Trump was 1000 times better than JoeTato?

 

[Ellejustus]

You graduated from University of Wiki. No thanks, professor... I'll pass. And no more tap dancing, please. Your legs have to be exhausted.



Calm down, Dad... I know Trump has you all upset. I posted the link because it was the first one that came up. Well, after Wikipedia from Fudd.

I'm just glad you didn't tear an ACL dodging all the posts about how incompetent your libtard party is. Good to see you at full strength.

Where's Husker Du?

 

[Slobodan]

In that Patrick Brown article you linked, he admits completely that climate change is a real thing happening now. Didn't you read it?

Why should he? You didn't read the article of "climate change deniers" you posted that literally said nobody on the list denies climate change.

 

[Slobodan]

Where's Husker Du?

Fudd probably had to request a new password.

 

[dad4]

The problem is you are advocating not publishing studies that go against the government line.

You and others dont like to see or read about questions, or people pointing out problems with the current theory and offering up their own.

This quite frankly is the position you and the gov/media held during COVID. It is not a rational or a good standard.

We want to see a back and forth. The public shouldnt be fed one line and not be exposed to why the theory may be completely wrong. Especially in light of all the things gov wants to change the economy as it relates to a theory.

It is not in the public interest to not know about other studies and/or opinions from scientists skeptical to the catastrophic global warming theory.

You would think that after the failure of the consensus during COVID one should not just blindly follow along.

But as they say people that dont understand/remember history are doomed to make the same mistakes again.

You can see the changes in satellite images.

Giant silt plumes off of Greenland where the newly swollen rivers are dumping glacial melt.

Same image from 1975? No silt plumes.

Same thing for pack ice. 1973 image, ice. 2023 image, open water.

Same thing for peak temperatures. Hottest year on record. Still the hottest year on record if you ignore urban monitoring sites.

Not really theory at this point. Just two well documented trends, one for CO2 and one for temperature.

But you want to pretend that there are thousands of well qualified climate skeptics who just can't get published.

They don't exist. This is why you bring up unqualified loons like Lomborg. He doesn't even have a science degree. But you think he's an expert, because he tells you what you want to hear.

 

[Desert Hound]

In that Patrick Brown article you linked, he admits completely that climate change is a real thing happening now. Didn't you read it?

I did read that he believes in climate change. He also stated that the publishers will not allow him to point out that most wildfires are not caused by climate change...but rather are started by humans. This contradicts the story line we hear so often that makes it sound like things are getting worse rapidly.

He also points out that people cannot write on other topics if it goes against the gov position.

So what you end up with is not getting a complete picture of what is going on. You are being feed propaganda essentially since only one point of view is allowed.

That central concept of his whole article just breezed right by you. Per usual.

 

[watfly]

He also points out that people cannot write on other topics if it goes against the gov position.

Go against the gov, or the popular academic opinion. This is common culture in academia/science. For example, it is well understood that you write a college paper, not based upon your opinion, but based upon what will please your professor and is consistent with their opinion.

You see it even more these days with the cancelling or shouting down of college speakers who present opposing opinions. Science is just an extension of academia.

 

[Desert Hound]

You can see the changes in satellite images.

Giant silt plumes off of Greenland where the newly swollen rivers are dumping glacial melt.

Same image from 1975? No silt plumes.

Same thing for pack ice. 1973 image, ice. 2023 image, open water.

Same thing for peak temperatures. Hottest year on record. Still the hottest year on record if you ignore urban monitoring sites.

Not really theory at this point. Just two well documented trends, one for CO2 and one for temperature.

But you want to pretend that there are thousands of well qualified climate skeptics who just can't get published.

They don't exist. This is why you bring up unqualified loons like Lomborg. He doesn't even have a science degree. But you think he's an expert, because he tells you what you want to hear.

You miss the point again.

The climate is always changing. Always has. We are coming out of a little ice age. We expect the temps to get warmer.

The planet has always had wild variations. It has been much colder and of course much warmer.

This is normal. The planet adjusts.

The theory is that somehow this time it is different. And that not only is it different but will be catastrophic.

That is the hard part. We have had changes for millions of years. It is normal. But now we are expected to believe that this time it is different and will be catastrophic. That is a high bar to cross and many scientists do not believe that warming will be catastrophic. Many point out that in the past when the earth was warmer life thrived.

So before we started turning over control of our economy and lives to bureaucrats and politicians and restrict what we do, I want a healthy dialog in research journals, etc. I want to see models that actually work well. They do not yet.

You on the other hand clearly want to restrict information to your preferred narrative...just like you did in Covid. You were constantly denigrating those you disagreed with. Ionnidas (spelling) at Stanford basically nailed it at the start. You discounted him because he was not in the profession of studying viruses. Last time I checked there were all kinds of scientists and politicians telling us what to do with regard to Covid that had zero education in viruses. You liked them however because you believed in what they told you.

You should be more skeptical in life about the consensus that is pushed on us by gov and media and one that does its best to stifle the voices of those that disagree. If the theory is robust and true they should welcome the dialog. Instead they work to shut it down. There is an agenda.

 

[watfly]

Go against the gov, or the popular academic opinion. This is common culture in academia/science. For example, it is well understood that you write a college paper, not based upon your opinion, but based upon what will please your professor and is consistent with their opinion.

You see it even more these days with the cancelling or shouting down of college speakers who present opposing opinions. Science is just an extension of academia.

NEW: 2024 College Free Speech Rankings show alarming 81% success rate of deplatforming attempts at nation’s most censorial schools

Students entering college this fall can expect a culture of conformity and censorship according to a new FIRE survey of more than 55,000 students across the country shows that most attend colleges that don’t value free expression.

www.thefire.org

Harvard gets worst score ever in FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings

Harvard has never performed well in FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings, finishing below 75% of the schools surveyed in each of the past four years.

www.thefire.org

 

[Desert Hound]

Here is an interesting vid to watch.

Was provost at Cal Tech. Undergraduate from that school. PHD from MIT.
Undersecretary for science in the Obama admin.

A lot of scientists feel the way he does.
A recent example is 2022 Nobel Prize winner in Physics John Clauser.

dad just doesnt hear about them because they dont get promoted the same way as pro climate change activists do. So they are off his radar and he is completely unaware of what their arguments might be.

Below is a video from Steven Koonin. The Cal Tech/MIT guy.

 

[Ellejustus]

Here is an interesting vid to watch.

Was provost at Cal Tech. Undergraduate from that school. PHD from MIT.
Undersecretary for science in the Obama admin.

A lot of scientists feel the way he does.
A recent example is 2022 Nobel Prize winner in Physics John Clauser.

dad just doesnt hear about them because they dont get promoted the same way as pro climate change activists do. So they are off his radar and he is completely unaware of what their arguments might be.

Below is a video from Steven Koonin. The Cal Tech/MIT guy.

Follow the bribes Hound

 

[espola]

This discussion is getting pretty funny.

Meanwhile, back in the real world --

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

 

[Ellejustus]

 

[dad4]

I did read that he believes in climate change. He also stated that the publishers will not allow him to point out that most wildfires are not caused by climate change...but rather are started by humans. This contradicts the story line we hear so often that makes it sound like things are getting worse rapidly.

He also points out that people cannot write on other topics if it goes against the gov position.

So what you end up with is not getting a complete picture of what is going on. You are being feed propaganda essentially since only one point of view is allowed.

That central concept of his whole article just breezed right by you. Per usual.

The central concept of the article does not support your position.

Brown is right that review boards are, in some cases, reluctant to publish. He is talking about whether to include a side topic (who lights forest fires) that might detract from the main point (climate change seems to be making the fires worse).

The question is whether to discuss the fact that climate related disasters are also impacted by other factors. Brown says yes, and he is right.

What Brown is not doing is advocating for publication of climate skeptics. Nowhere is the article does he mention skeptics, and it is a misreading on your part to imply that he did.

 

[Ellejustus]

We interrupt the Weather & Climate Channel with Breaking News:

Elon just post a "X" marks the spot on his twitter. Wowza folks. I told you guys that someone scheduling pizza for one hour and buying $65,000 worth of hot dogs is insane. It's all coming out.