The Reef Ain't Dead

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jackdale

https://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-b1786288.html

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I did not level and accusation at Spencer. I took him at his word.

Oh yes, silly me for confusing an accusation with a mere insinuation. Why engage over the substance of an expert opinion when you can quietly smear? As L-E has reminded us (right on cue as usual), it's guilt by mere association. Hence the rationale for name tags, right?

I have answered your loaded questions.

Well, you obviously haven't, but at least you haven't tried to misrepresent the degree of scientific certainty when it comes to severity of threats. The questions were not so much loaded as they are impossible to answer. But then that's exactly my point.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

As L-E has reminded us (right on cue as usual), it's guilt by mere association.

Well, as you asked earlier of Gord

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?

I have no doubt that scientists of Dr Spencer's stature don't have any difficulty getting their work published in any respected journal in his field. Why wouldn't he go that route more often, one wonders.

There's more going on than mere "association"; by working for "Friends of Science" and the Heartland Institute, is he not in the employ of organizations with a pretty solid reputation for only pursuing "science" in support of a favoured outcome? Let alone contributing to the previous administration's anti-CC propaganda.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I have no doubt that scientists of Dr Spencer's stature don't have any difficulty getting their work published in any respected journal in his field. Why wouldn't he go that route more often, one wonders.

Yes, one wonders, but others merely assume.

There's more going on than mere "association"; by working for "Friends of Science" and the Heartland Institute, is he not in the employ of organizations with a pretty solid reputation for only pursuing "science" in support of a favoured outcome? Let alone contributing to the previous administration's anti-CC propaganda.

It wasn't my understanding that Spencer was employed by either organization. I could be wrong, but if not then it's clear you like to assume a lot.

But I gather your new test for measuring an organization's scientific integrity is whether they have "a pretty solid reputation for only pursuing 'science' in support of a favoured outcome." Huh. Would you like to think that one through a little more perhaps? Surely you can't be THAT blinded by your own bias. Still don't understand? How about the revered John Cook of skeptical science.com fame, or the dossier collectors from desmogblog.com? Union of Concerned Scientists perhaps? Unlike Friends of Science, none of these organizations are pursuing science in support of a favored outcome you say? How about if one of them invited Michael Mann to come give a talk and festooned him with expensive champagne? Should that, on its own, impugn Mann's research, studies, or opinions? Surely you don't want to venture down this road.

Today I heard Pres. Biden repeat that we were in a climate "crisis." As evidence in support, he cited forest fires, extreme weather events, floods, droughts, and . . . we knew this was coming . . . Covid-19(!). (something about air pollution from fossil fuels exacerbating the spread of the virus but he sorta garbled it). This may actually put him beyond your 3.5 on the 5-part Stu questionnaire, and possibly into a realm where even Jackdale (wisely) doesn't want to commit. So per your reasoning, does this mean that, compared to the old, the new administration is engaged in pro-CC propaganda? No, of course not! THAT's different!! Trump was "anti-science!!" You really think others can't see through these little partisan games?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

It wasn't my understanding that Spencer was employed by either organization. I could be wrong, but if not then it's clear you like to assume a lot.

You're so cute. He's listed as an advisor, they publish stuff from him, he speaks at their events. I'm certain they sponsor some of his research, and as you've told us, wh0ring for grants will corrupt any scientist...

btw, do we get to repeatedly bring up his 2013 calculation screwup over and over again? I'm of the opinion that even great people make mistakes, it's in how they they address those that mark the truly great... but the skeptic/denial team keep bringing up ancient, many-times-explained/verified memes like "hockey stick", Climategate, etc. Fair's fair...

Originally Posted by Exile

But I gather your new test for measuring an organization's scientific integrity is whether they have "a pretty solid reputation for only pursuing 'science' in support of a favoured outcome." Huh. Would you like to think that one through a little more perhaps? Surely you can't be THAT blinded by your own bias. Still don't understand?

I understand that you're thrashing about for something/anything to toss back...
Let's review your projectiles:
John Cook/skeptical science.com - NOT a scientific organization!
desmogblog.com - NOT a scientific organization!
Union of Concerned Scientists...

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a national nonprofit organization founded more than 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Our mission: to use rigorous, independent science to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with people across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.
Today, we are a group of nearly 250 scientists, analysts, policy and communication experts dedicated to that purpose.

But- also not really a scientific organization. They seem to be working towards some solutions, solving problems...

Heartland Institute - don't make me laugh, please
"Friends of Science" No, I don't think so

So, no, I don't believe that the pro-CC organizations you've named in rebuttal pretend to be science institutions, or commission 'scientific' work to support ONE answer, like the Heartland Institute.

Here's a handy space for you to list ALL the genuinely science-oriented institutions that don't think that AGW is happening and is a problem:

___

So per your reasoning, does this mean that, compared to the old, the new administration is engaged in pro-CC propaganda?

Depends I guess, on whether the new administration actually believes that CC is serious enough to warrant action. Whereas in the previous one, most of them also know that CC is a serious problem, but it was politically advantageous to act like it wasn't.

(I know you'll invert this. BOTH SIDES! oooh!)

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I understand that you're thrashing about for something/anything to toss back...
Let's review your list:
John Cook/skeptical science.com - NOT a scientific organization!
desmogblog.com - NOT a scientific organization!
Union of Concerned Scientists...
But- also not really a scientific organization. They seem to be working towards some solutions, solving problems... not some preordained scientific conclusion.

Heartland Institute - don't make me laugh, please
"Friends of Science" No, I don't think so

So, no, I don't believe that the organizations you've named in rebuttal pretend to be science institutions, or commission/curate 'scientific' work to support ONE answer, like the Heartland Institute.

Here's a handy space for you to list ALL the genuinely science-oriented institutions that don't think that AGW is happening and is a problem:

___


Depends I guess, on whether the new administration actually believes that CC is serious enough to warrant action. Whereas in the previous one, most of them also know that CC is a serious problem, but it was politically advantageous to act like it wasn't.

(I know you'll invert this. BOTH SIDES! oooh!)

Sheesh.. More denials..

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Sheesh.. More denials..

Sorry what?
btw I edited after you quoted, if that might change things

[Tillikum]

So Lake-Effect et al., what's the big plan to prop up the falling sky anyway?

How exactly is that going to work?

You know, how is it going to (((stop global warming))) ?

Just describe the mechanism and the basic numbers; things ordinary peons can understand like the percentage decline in their average incomes and standard of living that will be required to "save Gaia".

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're so cute. He's listed as an advisor, they publish stuff from him, he speaks at their events. I'm certain they sponsor some of his research, and as you've told us, wh0ring for grants will corrupt any scientist...

IOW, and as I suspected, you haven't found that Spencer is employed by either organization, but by a state university, and NASA prior to that. It's obvious you're actually not certain of any sponsorship or grants he may or may not receive, and as far as you (or I) know he may receive none at all. Maybe he gets the occasional honorarium or reimbursement for travel expenses, but hard to believe he'd risk his professional reputation for the sake of that. Nope, he probably speaks for, advises, and is associated with these groups because they share many of his opinions. Why does this surprise and so disturb you?

btw, do we get to repeatedly bring up his 2013 calculation screwup over and over again? I'm of the opinion that even great people make mistakes, it's in how they they address those that mark the truly great... but the skeptic/denial team keep bringing up ancient, many-times-explained/verified memes like "hockey stick", Climategate, etc. Fair's fair...

We're back to a sporting event again? You're as clueless as I am about the details surrounding these "mistakes" by any of these scientists, and in Spencer's case they were fortunately uncovered, acknowledged, and corrected afaik. I don't beat the drum over Mann, the hockey stick, Climategate, the "adjustments" and the like. But others who follow it more closely have kicked it about. It all comes down to the integrity, credibility, and to some extent the consensus of scientific opinion itself that matters. Along with a suitably informed cost/benefit analysis, something which you and others never seem to want to even hear.

I understand that you're thrashing about for something/anything to toss back...
Let's review your projectiles:
John Cook/skeptical science.com - NOT a scientific organization!
desmogblog.com - NOT a scientific organization!
Union of Concerned Scientists...
But- also not really a scientific organization. They seem to be working towards some solutions, solving problems...

They're ALL advocacy organizations, ALL pursue science in support of their favored and often predetermined outcomes, and are ALL funded by individuals, corporations, other advocacy groups, and charitable foundations who share and support their work and their agendas. Surprise, surprise. Welcome to the real world L-E. Where have you been?

Heartland Institute - don't make me laugh, please
"Friends of Science" No, I don't think so

Whatever else they do or don't do, they help fund advocacy for a position you don't approve of but others do. Ain't free speech grand? Try learning to live with it, or live with something far worse.

So, no, I don't believe that the pro-CC organizations you've named in rebuttal pretend to be science institutions, or commission 'scientific' work to support ONE answer, like the Heartland Institute.

I don't think any of them are pretending to be anything other than what they are, and I have no idea what ONE answer means when it comes to a subject matter as complex as climate science, except that Heartland obviously opposes the mainstream "consensus" on AGW to some degree. This is how debates happen in free societies that honor rights of free speech and association. Organizations are formed, individuals and interest groups provide donations, agendas are pursued, and a competition ensues for attention and influence. With any such freedoms come costs, however, which in this case is a certain amount of propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, and utter bulls**t from all sides. Social media and widespread internet access doesn't help (although one might think it would). But I think it might be safe to say (I hope) that most people still believe it preferable to any of the alternatives yet tried. Like everything else it's a trade-off, but tolerance, civility, compromise, and respect for contrary opinion is what makes it ultimately work. Without those it obviously breaks down.

Here's a handy space for you to list ALL the genuinely science-oriented institutions that don't think that AGW is happening and is a problem:

___

So Heartland and Friends of Science are not "genuinely science-oriented" according to who again? Shall we look up their principals and compare their science credentials to yours? Shall we appoint a govt "commission" to approve who can and cannot exist based on whether they're "science-oriented" enough, in other words whether their opinions and beliefs conform? How about if we extend this to prohibit dissent altogether, first to protect the chosen science and then maybe the govt itself? What sort of injury to rights of speech, press and association are you willing to erode to make good on your never-ending, very personal belief that you are necessary or relevant in "saving the world?"

Depends I guess, on whether the new administration actually believes that CC is serious enough to warrant action. Whereas in the previous one, most of them also know that CC is a serious problem, but it was politically advantageous to act like it wasn't.

(I know you'll invert this. BOTH SIDES! oooh!)

Again, it's not a sporting event, and your frequent attempts to make it so trivialize the discussion. Opinions you disagree with can't credibly be labeled propaganda while equally unsupported ones are not. Or do you believe AGW is exacerbating Covid-19? (you'll need to up your 3.5 to at least a 4-4.5). Blame Trump, the fossil fuel industry, and the Heartland Institute all you want, but you'll never achieve public consensus with transparent hypocrisy, low-level ridicule, and alarmist fears. People are much smarter than your own conceit allows you to believe.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're so cute. He's listed as an advisor, they publish stuff from him, he speaks at their events. I'm certain they sponsor some of his research, and as you've told us, wh0ring for grants will corrupt any scientist...

"Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE."

[Alan Mighty]

That's gotta hurt:-

[Alan Mighty]

To compare with this time in 2020:

https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/prod...#torres_strait

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

That's gotta hurt:-

Hmmm, that scary dark Alert Level 2 in the Coral Sea is all 2000-4000+ metres deep. As is almost all of the Alert Level 1 to the east of it. Not much coral to watch there!

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

To compare with this time in 2020:

https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/prod...#torres_strait

Did you read the "Heartbleed notice" at the bottom of that page and at the bottom of the page you got that chart from.?

"Data and images hosted on the STAR webservers are not official NOAA operational products, and are provided only as examples for experimental use by remote sensing researchers, experienced meteorologists, or oceanographers."

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

So Lake-Effect et al., what's the big plan to prop up the falling sky anyway?

How exactly is that going to work?

You know, how is it going to (((stop global warming))) ?

Just describe the mechanism and the basic numbers; things ordinary peons can understand like the percentage decline in their average incomes and standard of living that will be required to "save Gaia".

Stop emitting anthropogenic GHGs gases. Help bring the carbon cycle back into balance. There is a lot to do. A healthy planet is necessary for healthy economies. International cooperation had some success with CFCs and with acid rain. The Paris Accord is not perfect, but is it is better than nothing and can be improved.

BTW - the sky is not falling. The tropopause is increasing in altitude - because of AGW. https://physicsworld.com/a/why-is-th...etting-higher/