Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Scary.

No ice here, either:

The Arctic Ocean is not the Pacific Ocean. The photo I posted was taken in Parry Channel during 36 hour escort by the Louis St Laurent of the the Nordic Orion in September of 2013.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I don't think you can compare colleges and universities (which are supposedly free of control over curricula) with public k-12 schools. In Canada, schools are under provincial control.

Schools maybe. But teacher training?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

Schools maybe. But teacher training?

Fair point. But the school curriculum is supervised by government; you wouldn't get GW being 'taught' if it wasn't sanctioned. And parents are quite vigilant; if someone was teaching seriously off-script, there'd be complaints.

Or... maybe undercutter's grandkids had a genuinely lefty teacher. It happens.

We don't currently know any teachers or have kids in the system.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you're referring to comments made on CF, your implication that Christy is being derided just for being a Baptist minister is unfounded. You well know that Christy and Spence have scientific disagreements with the mainstream, and those issues can be argued purely on the science.

That's the your best spin on Jack's many posts insinuating a religious bias on the part of Drs. Christy & Spencer? How about his last one where he simply posted that "Dr. Christy is a Baptist minister" and left it at that? Do you recall my lengthy back & forth with Jack on this where I kept asking for any evidence of such bias beyond the mere fact of religious belief and affiliation, or is leaving that out also another one of your ways of distorting the discussion in order to advance your talking points?

The only religion-based criticism made here, as I recall, is that Christy is a member of the Cornwall Alliance, therefore presumably a signatory to this declaration... and I for one think that signing onto that raises questions about a climate scientist's objectivity... but I haven't and won't discount his work because of that.

I read this oft-cited "Cornwall Declaration" for at least the third time, and still don't get the connection btwn. Christy's scientific work in climatology and his religious beliefs. Because it talks about Creationism? Because he & Spencer are supposedly so-called "end-timers" as Jack has also insinuated? Why can't either of you simply state what this alleged bias is, and how it is improperly biasing their work at a public university collecting uncontested data from NASA satellites???

Here, lemme help:

Has this purported bias come up in professional circles? Is this a bias that other reputable climate scientists -- on either side of the issue -- complain about? Or is this just another factlet mindlessly repeated by the non-scientist internet intelligentsia who's self-proclaimed moral superiority renders them immune from taking personal responsibility?

Ah, but wait . . . "I for one think that signing onto that raises questions about a climate scientist's objectivity... but I haven't and won't discount his work because of that." And you call ME a coward?? For the last time, please either state what "questions" you, Jack or others have about Drs. Christy & Spencer's objectivity, or kindly stop making such distasteful insinuations. And yes, yes, we've all read and heard all the unkind things leveled towards scientists who follow the mainstream AGW position as well. But implying bias on account of all the money flowing into research on both sides is one thing, but attacking someone's professional opinion based on personal beliefs quite another. Or did they fail to teach you this in grade school?

As the venerable Delfin has recently shown, the most vociferous anti-AGW attacks are still being made against the whole field of climate science and its practitioners. Attacks on one scientist kind of pale by comparison.

Where are the attacks on mainstream scientists based on their religion, L-E?? Here in the U.S. anyway, freedom of religious belief is afforded the same, highest level of protection as one's race and ethnicity. Are not your appeals to the 97% consensus and IPCC not enough that you & Jack have to insinuate bias on the basis of a person's personal beliefs? Or is the painfully obvious and transparent motivation for your insinuations the fact that these scientists are MMGW skeptics who have produced consistent satellite data which is more consistent with a warming trend due primarily to natural forces? Talk is cheap -- it's not enough to claim virtue by simply saying that science based skepticism "can be argued purely on the science" but at the same time insinuating improper & unprofessional motives. You honestly think nobody else sees through this?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Schools maybe. But teacher training?

Provincial.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The Arctic Ocean is not the Pacific Ocean. The photo I posted was taken in Parry Channel during 36 hour escort by the Louis St Laurent of the the Nordic Orion in September of 2013.

Oh, that Parry Channel. Same one, I presume, that Amundsen went through in 1906 which was the last time ice had retreated sufficiently to make Arctic passages practical.

For a scientific, as opposed to pseudo-scientific analysis of the question of whether current ice levels are remarkable, Judith Curry's discussion here is useful: https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/h...-ii-1920-1950/

Warning, Jack. This is an objective look at all the relevant data, so is probably something you should avoid for the reasons already discussed.

[adoxograph]

Please guys do yourself a favor and leave science out of your debate. Please start all your posts with: I believe because ...

There are three messengers here and most you follow only one. The first one are the scientists, the second one is the media and the third one are political/financial interests. I don't understand anyone who positions himself religously on one side of politics with statements like: "I am a right conservative, bladibladibla" or "I am a left greeny bladibladibla". The problem is if you identify yourself with left or right, conservative or liberal, you close your mind. You believe you know it all and follow the stream of your value and believe system and, as we see in this thread, you will defend your position no matter what, trying to convince everyone you have the ultimate truth.

If you do this it is obvious that you do not understand science or the scientific process. I give you an example out of my field. 1917 Einstein published his field equations for general relativity. He saw only one problem: The consensus of 98% of scientists, including himself, followed the prevalent hypothesis that the universe is static, even Einstein's equation predicted an expanding or contracting universe. Because of the consensus Einstein put Lamda, the cosmological constant in his equations and viola the universe was static - at least kind of.

Shortly after that Slipher showed that galaxies are moving away from us and Friedman and Lemaitre came up with a solution for Einsteins equations proving an expanding Universe. Only 1931, after Hubble had proven with observational evidence that there was velocity-distance relationship, the issue was settled and since then 98% of astrophysicist are in consensus that the universe is expanding.

Science is not static, it is always in flow. Science is the search for knowledge and a strict believe in something, a dogma, is completely counterproductive in science. Keep an open mind and follow the science not the political dogma of your party, or the "truth" the media is feeding you! Yes the media in her quest for more revenue, profit and of course influence. What headline do you think sells more papers:

1.) God help us! The great Barrier Reef is dying - 97% of the Reef coral already bleached.
2.) 97% of the Great barrier Reef show signs of bleaching.

another example:

1.) Mini Ice age is coming - Scientist finds that Sun activities reduced by 60% in 2030
2.) 60% reduction of sunspots and surface activities expected in cycle #26

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Oh, that Parry Channel. Same one, I presume, that Amundsen went through in 1906 which was the last time ice had retreated sufficiently to make Arctic passages practical.

It took Amundsen three years to go through the NWP, 1903-1906.

The St Roche also went through the NWP - twice in the 1940's.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Please guys do yourself a favor and leave science out of your debate. Please start all your posts with: I believe because ...

There are three messengers here and most you follow only one. The first one are the scientists, the second one is the media and the third one are political/financial interests. I don't understand anyone who positions himself religously on one side of politics with statements like: "I am a right conservative, bladibladibla" or "I am a left greeny bladibladibla". The problem is if you identify yourself with left or right, conservative or liberal, you close your mind. You believe you know it all and follow the stream of your value and believe system and, as we see in this thread, you will defend your position no matter what, trying to convince everyone you have the ultimate truth.

If you do this it is obvious that you do not understand science or the scientific process. I give you an example out of my field. 1917 Einstein published his field equations for general relativity. He saw only one problem: The consensus of 98% of scientists, including himself, followed the prevalent hypothesis that the universe is static, even Einstein's equation predicted an expanding or contracting universe. Because of the consensus Einstein put Lamda, the cosmological constant in his equations and viola the universe was static - at least kind of.

Shortly after that Slipher showed that galaxies are moving away from us and Friedman and Lemaitre came up with a solution for Einsteins equations proving an expanding Universe. Only 1931, after Hubble had proven with observational evidence that there was velocity-distance relationship, the issue was settled and since then 98% of astrophysicist are in consensus that the universe is expanding.

Science is not static, it is always in flow. Science is the search for knowledge and a strict believe in something, a dogma, is completely counterproductive in science. Keep an open mind and follow the science not the political dogma of your party!

But here comes the media in her quest for more revenue, profit and of course influence. What headline do you think sells more papers:

1.) God help us! The great Barrier Reef is dying - 97% of the Reef coral already bleached.
2.) 97% of the Great barrier Reef show signs of bleaching.

another example:

1.) Mini Ice age is coming - Scientist finds that Sun activities reduced by 60% in 2030
2.) 60% reduction of sunspots and surface activities expected in cycle #26

quite a sensible post.. which makes me wonder why your posting it on here.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

quite a sensible post.. which makes me wonder why your posting it on here.

The answer is just one word:

Procrastination

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It took Amundsen three years to go through the NWP, 1903-1906.

The St Roche also went through the NWP - twice in the 1940's.

Good thing you stayed away from Curry's thoughts. Best to keep your mind clear of contrary data.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

That's the your best spin on Jack's many posts insinuating a religious bias on the part of Drs. Christy & Spencer? How about his last one where he simply posted that "Dr. Christy is a Baptist minister" and left it at that?

You mean this one? Unless my grasp of English is failing, Jackdale is responding to Delfin who is going on about how Cook is/was a cartoonist, and Jackdale responds with "And John Christy is / was an ordained Baptist minister." Intended, I believe, to portray that cartoonist or Baptist minister are irrelevancies. If I'm wrong here i will let Jackdale clarify, but to this point, I don't think you can construe he made an attack on Christy's credibility for being a Baptist minister. I recall that he said that he accepted Christy & Spencers data without reservations.

Do you recall my lengthy back & forth with Jack on this where I kept asking for any evidence of such bias beyond the mere fact of religious belief and affiliation, or is leaving that out also another one of your ways of distorting the discussion in order to advance your talking points?

I can't figure out whether the insult part was for me or Jackdale. Anyway, yes I recall that back and forth, but don't remember the specifics.

I read this oft-cited "Cornwall Declaration" for at least the third time, and still don't get the connection btwn. Christy's scientific work in climatology and his religious beliefs. Because it talks about Creationism? Because he & Spencer are supposedly so-called "end-timers" as Jack has also insinuated? Why can't either of you simply state what this alleged bias is, and how it is improperly biasing their work at a public university collecting uncontested data from NASA satellites???

AGAIN, I don't think Jackdale or I have stated any problems with their datasets.

I personally question the objectivity of their general conclusions on the whole subject of global warming when one of them (Spencer) has signed onto a a tract that rigidly dictates what they believe re global warming. When they give their opinion on the big topic, I have to ask - are we hearing the scientist or the believer?

To be clear, cos you seem to be in a bit of a fog - I (me) have not attacked anyone for their religion, I don't believe that Jackdale has either. I do find it problematic when someone signs onto a very specific declaration that seems to prejudge something they're supposed to be studying. Like that stupid declaration.

Ah, but wait . . . "I for one think that signing onto that raises questions about a climate scientist's objectivity... but I haven't and won't discount his work because of that." And you call ME a coward??

Do I have to explain again? I don't have any issues with their datasets, or even with their conclusions re the "hiatus" that are based on their own data. I do think that JUST using the satellite data is missing something.

... attacking someone's professional opinion based on personal beliefs.

If a judge writes on his blog that "I believe X is guilty" before the trial, his objectivity is questionable. If a scientist is asked "what about AGW" and he's signed onto a pledge that says "God sez AGW's not a thing", I question his objectivity too. A specific, directly connected pledge; he could belong to a professional association that made a similar public pledge and I would have the exact same problem with it.

Nobody has been attacked FOR their religion. (except me of course [sarcasm])

Talk is cheap -- it's not enough to claim virtue by simply saying that science based skepticism "can be argued purely on the science" but at the same time insinuating improper & unprofessional motives. You honestly think nobody else sees through this?

I think anybody would see you're confused about what was actually brought up.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by undercutter

I posted this once before, in that it doesn't matter what the opinion of the older generations are as all the children are being trained up by the system controlled by the left including GW,

So you want the curriculum to include a point of view that that is not accepted by one single science academy on the planet? Let's include creation is a biology class as well while we are at it.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You mean this one? Unless my grasp of English is failing, Jackdale is responding to Delfin who is going on about how Cook is/was a cartoonist, and Jackdale responds with "And John Christy is / was an ordained Baptist minister." Intended, I believe, to portray that cartoonist or Baptist minister are irrelevancies. If I'm wrong here i will let Jackdale clarify, but to this point, I don't think you can construe he made an attack on Christy's credibility for being a Baptist minister. I recall that he said that he accepted Christy & Spencers data without reservations.

I can't figure out whether the insult part was for me or Jackdale. Anyway, yes I recall that back and forth, but don't remember the specifics.

AGAIN, I don't think Jackdale or I have stated any problems with their datasets.

I personally question the objectivity of their general conclusions on the whole subject of global warming when one of them (Spencer) has signed onto a a tract that rigidly dictates what they believe re global warming. When they give their opinion on the big topic, I have to ask - are we hearing the scientist or the believer?

To be clear, cos you seem to be in a bit of a fog - I (me) have not attacked anyone for their religion, I don't believe that Jackdale has either. I do find it problematic when someone signs onto a very specific declaration that seems to prejudge something they're supposed to be studying. Like that stupid declaration.

Do I have to explain again? I don't have any issues with their datasets, or even with their conclusions re the "hiatus" that are based on their own data. I do think that JUST using the satellite data is missing something.

If a judge writes on his blog that "I believe X is guilty" before the trial, his objectivity is questionable. If a scientist is asked "what about AGW" and he's signed onto a pledge that says "God sez AGW's not a thing", I question his objectivity too. A specific, directly connected pledge; he could belong to a professional association that made a similar public pledge and I would have the exact same problem with it.

Nobody has been attacked FOR their religion. (except me of course [sarcasm])


I think anybody would see you're confused about what was actually brought up.

The difference is that Dr. Christy is a trained climate scientist and John Cook is a cartoonist turned propagandist. Jack's reference to Christy also being a minister is just the typical warmist ad hominem from an intellectually dishonest person.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Good thing you stayed away from Curry's thoughts. Best to keep your mind clear of contrary data.

Please provide your analysis of Curry's post in which you believe she supports your position.