The Reef Ain't Dead

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Exile

Have you considered whether these "scientific journals" would even be open to accepting Spencer's findings and, if not, why not? Maybe I missed it, but I haven't noticed principals or advisors to Friends of Science having doctorate degrees in pseudoscience. As laymen, are we back to weighing the "legitimacy" of scientific opinion based on favored outcomes or based on the science itself? Spencer's analysis is using the same data as other scientists who reach conclusions more to your liking. How do we judge, objectively that is?

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?v...2Z0WY2UX6YAtKg

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Have you considered whether these "scientific journals" would even be open to accepting Spencer's findings and, if not, why not? Maybe I missed it, but I haven't noticed principals or advisors to Friends of Science having doctorate degrees in pseudoscience. As laymen, are we back to weighing the "legitimacy" of scientific opinion based on favored outcomes or based on the science itself? Spencer's analysis is using the same data as other scientists who reach conclusions more to your liking. How do we judge, objectively that is?

Have you considered even bothering to check if Spencer is published in the "scientific journals" ? Or do you simply wish to go on insinuation.

https://www.researchgate.net/scienti...pencer-5628228

As for assessing the validity of science or other publications, try the CRAAP Test.

https://guides.library.duq.edu/infor...aluation/CRAAP

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Apparently that can be problematic.

Canada is Warming at Only 1/2 the Rate of Climate Model Simulations

If it interests you, here is an AGW-apologist's point of view. Can't say as I totally understand all the arguments.

Also, in the comments section following Dr Spencer's article are challenges/questions to his understanding.

That being said, after accepting a number of corrections to his research by the scientific community, Spencer's arguments do provide useful challenges that should be considered.

Factcheck: Climate models have not ‘exaggerated’ global warming

Originally Posted by Exile

.....Your opinion. Many scientists dispute this, along with many more laymen. Nothing close to "proof" that either you, or those who disagree with you, have it right or wrong.

Not necessarily commenting on the specifics of what you are saying that "many scientists dispute this", but, in general, there are very few climate scientists who dispute AGW --- you can probably count them on the fingers of your hands.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Apparently that can be problematic.

Canada is Warming at Only 1/2 the Rate of Climate Model Simulations

It is a very short term drop in temperature. The long term trend shows warming. BTW - he did for the FOS.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Have you considered even bothering to check if Spencer is published in the "scientific journals" ? Or do you simply wish to go on insinuation.

https://www.researchgate.net/scienti...pencer-5628228

As for assessing the validity of science or other publications, try the CRAAP Test.

https://guides.library.duq.edu/infor...aluation/CRAAP

I didn't see Spencer's recent study comparing Canada's actual warming vs. the modeling on the list you linked to. You know, the one we were just discussing.

I've tried the CRAAP test -- the last 17 times you've posted it that is without trying to actually apply it -- and found it overly abstract and therefore rather crappy. But feel free to show us how you think it applies here.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Have you considered whether these "scientific journals" would even be open to accepting Spencer's findings and, if not, why not? Maybe I missed it, but I haven't noticed principals or advisors to Friends of Science having doctorate degrees in pseudoscience. As laymen, are we back to weighing the "legitimacy" of scientific opinion based on favored outcomes or based on the science itself? Spencer's analysis is using the same data as other scientists who reach conclusions more to your liking. How do we judge, objectively that is?

Those blinkers you wear - do they ever chafe, or anything? Just wondering.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Not necessarily commenting on the specifics of what you are saying that "many scientists dispute this", but, in general, there are very few climate scientists who dispute AGW --- you can probably count them on the fingers of your hands.

I don't know about the actual count but yes, I think this accurately reflects the position of climate scientists on the whole in answer to the question of whether AGW exists. But the question I was trying to answer with what you quoted above was

5. An existential threat resulting from anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

Maybe not clear from the formatting. See post 969 (bottom).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Those blinkers you wear - do they ever chafe, or anything? Just wondering.

Nah, I only use them for my carbon-emitting pony (which I then offset by riding my bicycle to the stables). Otherwise they really get in the way of any efforts to beat back my own bias.

Are we about to embark on another episode of "Battle of the Climate Scientists?" My "hero" is the underdog again (according to the LV bookmakers) so I'm not looking for a "win". But a simple field goal might just prevent him from being labeled Dr. Pseudoscience during the halftime show.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by boatman61

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?v...2Z0WY2UX6YAtKg

Point well taken. Probably why I often have a hard time finding crew. Seems like I've been "identified" by the politics of the day as someone who often relishes sailing rougher seas. Definitely not in sync with how we're being told to conform to what the labelmakers have deemed "correct."

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

If it interests you, here is an AGW-apologist's point of view. Can't say as I totally understand all the arguments.

Also, in the comments section following Dr Spencer's article are challenges/questions to his understanding.

That being said, after accepting a number of corrections to his research by the scientific community, Spencer's arguments do provide useful challenges that should be considered.

Factcheck: Climate models have not ‘exaggerated’ global warming

I can't say I understand the various arguments either, but I did find this article reasonably objective in that it seemed to fairly present the different sides in support of its own conclusion. All seemingly coming from inside the science itself and not from the pundits on the sidelines. Certainly more productive than merely dismissing one side on superficial grounds, or misrepresenting the level of scientific certainty. What level of certainty is enough to warrant commensurate action? Don't know, but pretty certain that those who claim they do know actually know less than I do, and are not the ones we want making ultimate policy decisions.

[GordMay]

[QUOTE=Exile;3329475]Not sure what you're reading into my posts, or what all the angst is about, but what I stated was not that the existence of "AGW" itself was unsettled, but that the severity of its IMPACTS and the suitability of the proposed REMEDIES for those debated impacts are unsettled. AGW itself, i.e. that it "exists" and is having some level of impact on the climate, does in fact appear to be rather "settled," at least within the climate science community. (not quite as settled amongst physicists and meteorologists). The reason I use the term "settled" when it comes to AGW itself is because some of the most well known and respected skeptics within the climate science community (Spencer, Christie, Curry) agree that AGW exists and is having some level of impact. The strength of this "consensus" breaks down when it comes to severity of IMPACTS and proposed REMEDIES. I'm not sure how I can express it any clearer, or why you think this is a con job or anything other than what I think is a common understanding of the overall state of the science. Within the debate amongst scientists over the severity of IMPACTS and suitability of REMEDIES is a whole host of differing opinions based on largely the same "mountain" of data (more or less)...

... Again, the controversy mainly centers around IMPACTS & REMEDIES, and not whether AGW exists! Can we at least agree on what exactly we're in disagreement about? ..."

I think you've summarised the debate, very well; except that you probably overestimate the level of qualified uncertainty regarding impacts, and ignore the ideological motivations behind the resistance to remedies.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I think you've summarised the debate, very well; except that you probably overestimate the level of qualified uncertainty regarding impacts,

Maybe so . . . not intending to sugarcoat/mislead the state of the science. Just hard to swallow our usual allotment of natural disasters all being blamed on AGW when the reported warming over the past century-plus seems modest. But again, what are we comparing it to, and why is it necessarily undesirable? I've seen plenty of seemingly valid science-based opinions from all sides, all apparently relying on the same basic data.

and ignore the ideological motivations behind the resistance to remedies.

Certainly not trying to intentionally ignore. I think everyone is well aware of the ideological motivations on BOTH sides, so didn't think it useful to drag the thread even further down that inevitably divisive path.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

What level of certainty is enough to warrant commensurate action?

What level of understanding (of CC, air/water/soil pollution, single-use plastics, protecting a finite resource, etc) is enough to take ANY action?

Like, for starters, not subsidizing the continued addiction to fossil fuels? (global, US-specific) (and another)

Any arguments about reducing fossil-fuel use harming the poor or ignoring the needs of the developing world go right out the window when you understand the extent to which those fossil fuels are subsidized - 6.5 percent of global GDP!

Imagine if that kind of scratch was applied instead to:

• subsidizing development of better renewables and other less polluting energy sources - especially sources suited to the needs of developing countries
• assisting those developing countries with their energy, water, food security
• assisting the poor of developed countries with any cost increases of cleaner energy.

Fossil fuel subsidies tell the story... once, they made sense - to improve supplies, achieve energy independence from OPEC states, as a cheap base for growth in other areas (or as a crutch for an otherwise anemic economy).

That time is past. Yet those industries are fighting by any means, including well-orchestrated lobbying and propaganda, to hang onto their perks and their profits. And in the US, they are currently winning the propaganda war, by driving the CC debate to a partisan stalemate.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

What level of certainty is enough to warrant commensurate action?

About the same level of certainty that tells you to purchase fire insurance on your home.

[jackdale]

I have been looking at the Natural Resources Canada report, "Canada’s Changing Climate Report" looking for a comparison for Canada's long term temperature change compared to global temperature change. I can across this graphic showing long term changes in climate factors.