The Reef Ain't Dead

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

There are organizations that have teams of scientists working on, say, the environmental impacts of deforestation, and then there are organizs. who rely on those same scientists, or have their own, to advocate and lobby to stop deforestation. On the other side there are logging, cattle, or mining interests with their own teams of scientists who push back, perhaps making the case for alternatives other than what is being proposed by the other side. Do I really need to chew up more time and space explaining this?

Above, you've described "advocacy" only, or you're implying some sort of scientific parity between academic/research institutions and special-interest-funded advocacy. That's obviously a false equivalence.

I've already posted what I know about the guy. Stop pursuing this irresponsible (and arguably libelous) theme.

I've said nothing that's disparaging or libellous to the good doctor. You're just spinning. I don't think he's done or doing anything unethical, immoral, or wrong. But when he's opining on the future impact of climate change, he is one step out of his field, and it's only prudent to take into account other factors that might influence that opinion, or why he's so often in the spotlight with it. No different and certainly not worse than any of the rationalizations you and others have previously brought up to explain why so many scientists and scientific institutions have endorsed the, ahem, consensus.

I've always said it's relevant that Spencer et al. has conservative leanings, affiliations, and values, but that it's relevance is limited by evidence that it's corrupting his scientific/professional work.

Let me confirm YET AGAIN that I don't think he's been "corrupted" or is doing bad science. It's more to do with how others use/misuse his opinions. And the extent to which he's been doing advocacy for the fossil-fuel industry, who are clearly not unbiased participants.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

It's customary for expert witnesses to be paid fees and expenses for consultation and testimony. In fact it's often set out by statute. Experts can, of course, waive such fees. There are some in various fields who make a living serving as full-time expert witnesses, but I don't think that's the case here. It should be no surprise to anyone that these respective experts testified in line with the interests and parties that they are aligned with vis-a-vis the science. Suggesting improper bias solely because they were compensated for their time and services is pretty lame.

What happened to "follow the money"?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Suggesting improper bias solely because they were compensated for their time and services is pretty lame.

Speaking of lame, the team of scientists who defended Peabody Coal in that trial were apparently unsuccessful in persuading the judge, and that there were discernable flaws and weaknesses in their evidence. Nothing to do with improper bias... but maybe another suggestion that their conclusion simply doesn't fit well with the evidence?

[Exile]

Above, you've described "advocacy" only, or you're implying some sort of scientific parity between academic/research institutions and special-interest-funded advocacy. That's obviously a false equivalence.

No, I didn't. I'll insert nos. in bold for you to help decipher what I previously wrote:

1 = Scientific; 2 = Advocacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile:
[1]There are organizations that have teams of scientists working on, say, the environmental impacts of deforestation, and then [2]there are organizs. who rely on those same scientists, or have their own, to advocate and lobby to stop deforestation. On the other side there are logging, cattle, or mining interests with their own teams of scientists who push back, perhaps making the case for alternatives other than what is being proposed by the other side. Do I really need to chew up more time and space explaining this?

A "false equivalence" of WHAT? For who's eligible for funding? Wrong. For who's eligible to have a voice? Wrong. For who's eligible for tax-exempt status from the IRS? Depends whether they're a 501(c)(3) (charitable) or 501(c)(4) (political). Both are allowed to receive contributions and advocate all they like, the only diff being whether such donations are tax-deductible by the donor. This is simply how public policy works. Advocacy and lobbying organizs. like FoS and Heartland -- along with their many equivalents on the other side -- rely on a host of experts of all types to promote their positions. Nobody's trying to pass themselves off as something other than what they are. If you're confused go to their public websites and click on "About Us." It doesn't matter in any event, since if they're advocating for an issue related to science they will be relying on scientists and scientific organizs., or in some cases have their own. Like you always do, you're simply trying to discredit people and organizs. that you oppose, rather than the ideas and opinions they're supporting. But then that's exactly how the information sources you rely on are telling how to "frame" the debate. This leads to a completely dysfunctional level of discourse nowadays, and you've shown you're not able to filter it in the least.

I've said nothing that's disparaging or libellous to the good doctor. You're just spinning. I don't think he's done or doing anything unethical, immoral, or wrong. But when he's opining on the future impact of climate change, he is one step out of his field, and it's only prudent to take into account other factors that might influence that opinion, or why he's so often in the spotlight with it. No different and certainly not worse than any of the rationalizations you and others have previously brought up to explain why so many scientists and scientific institutions have endorsed the, ahem, consensus.

Let me confirm YET AGAIN that I don't think he's been "corrupted" or is doing bad science. It's more to do with how others use/misuse his opinions. And the extent to which he's been doing advocacy for the fossil-fuel industry, who are clearly not unbiased participants.[/QUOTE]

Congratulations on informing us all that the FF industry are not unbiased participants in the CC debate. Can we move along now please?

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Exile

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.

Ah that it were a sporting event.

From an integrity viewpoint the sporting events great advantage over the AGW/CC hypothesis is that the sporting event conforms much more to the scientific method.

In the sporting sphere the commentator puts forward a hypothesis, the game is played thereby providing the experimental support, the outcome either does or does not support the hypothesis. Very much the scientific process as expounded by Bacon.

In contrast the AGW/CC method largely consists of sitting down in front of a computer, dreaming up a model, and then claiming the science is "settled" without any experimental support whatsoever.

So which sphere of activity has the greater claim to scientific integrity?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

What happened to "follow the money"?

I tried following it Jack. First to the right, then to the left, but each time I only wound up back in the same exact place.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Speaking of lame, the team of scientists who defended Peabody Coal in that trial were apparently unsuccessful in persuading the judge, and that there were discernable flaws and weaknesses in their evidence. Nothing to do with improper bias... but maybe another suggestion that their conclusion simply doesn't fit well with the evidence?

Lawyers, in black robes or not, don't make for the best arbiters of complex science questions that scientists themselves haven't yet been able to figure out.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I tried following it Jack. First to the right, then to the left, but each time I only wound up back in the same exact place.

Here is a money trail that is telling.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ors-Trust.html

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Here is a money trail that is telling.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ors-Trust.html

We've seen this picture before. Awhile go as I recall. The great Happer Scandal. Or is this a new one? I recall my giving you a hard time about it, and you reciprocating in kind. How about we stand down this time? Besides, I may need you to correct me in a future Colregs thread, or marine weather, or navigation, etc. (not being facetious ).

[GordMay]

boatman61 has already raised this subject, and I'm with him, on this, however , there are costs ...
➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3329383
➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3329315
➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3329195

Every year, approximately 33 million acres of forests are cut down. Timber harvesting, in the tropics alone, contributes 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere. That represents 20 percent of human-made greenhouse gas emissions, and a source that could be avoided relatively easily.
Avoiding most of that deforestation would prevent the release many millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (GtCO2e/year).
Improved agricultural practices along with paper recycling, and forest management (reforestation*) could quickly eliminate this significant chunk of emissions.
The major challenges to preventing deforestation are political and economic. Avoiding deforestation will require establishing large-scale incentives, and regulatory mechanisms, to address the major sources of deforestation, such as cattle ranching in the Amazon, or palm oil production in Indonesia.
Another problem, though, is that while researchers understand a good deal about which trees are best to grow for timber harvesting, they are less knowledgeable about breeding trees whose major focus is to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

* Reforestation does carry a financial burden, as well as benefits (climate & employment)

“Financial Support for Planting 2 Billion Trees” ~ PBO Jan. 28/21
The Government of Canada proposes to provide up to $3.16 billion, over ten years, to partner with provinces, territories, non-governmental organizations, Indigenous communities and municipalities to plant 2 billion trees.
However, the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) analysis suggests getting there is going to require more money, about $2.78 billion more, bringing the overall cost closer to $5.94 billion (188% more).
PBO Notes ➥ https://pbo-dpb.s3.ca-central-1.amaz...767eb86e2e12de

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by GordMay

boatman61 has already raised this subject, and I'm with him, on this, however , there are costs ...
➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3329383
➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3329315
➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3329195

Every year, approximately 33 million acres of forests are cut down. Timber harvesting, in the tropics alone, contributes 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere. That represents 20 percent of human-made greenhouse gas emissions, and a source that could be avoided relatively easily.
Avoiding most of that deforestation would prevent the release many millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (GtCO2e/year).
Improved agricultural practices along with paper recycling, and forest management (reforestation*) could quickly eliminate this significant chunk of emissions.
The major challenges to preventing deforestation are political and economic. Avoiding deforestation will require establishing large-scale incentives, and regulatory mechanisms, to address the major sources of deforestation, such as cattle ranching in the Amazon, or palm oil production in Indonesia.
Another problem, though, is that while researchers understand a good deal about which trees are best to grow for timber harvesting, they are less knowledgeable about breeding trees whose major focus is to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

* Reforestation does carry a financial burden, as well as benefits (climate & employment)

“Financial Support for Planting 2 Billion Trees” ~ PBO Jan. 28/21
The Government of Canada proposes to provide up to $3.16 billion, over ten years, to partner with provinces, territories, non-governmental organizations, Indigenous communities and municipalities to plant 2 billion trees.
However, the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) analysis suggests getting there is going to require more money, about $2.78 billion more, bringing the overall cost closer to $5.94 billion (188% more).
PBO Notes ➥ https://pbo-dpb.s3.ca-central-1.amaz...767eb86e2e12de

Gord.. I think history has shown once man's footprint is removed nature is quick to move back in and repopulate the land with native species that existed before.. Amazon, Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia..

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

We've seen this picture before. Awhile go as I recall. The great Happer Scandal. Or is this a new one? I recall my giving you a hard time about it, and you reciprocating in kind. How about we stand down this time? Besides, I may need you to correct me in a future Colregs thread, or marine weather, or navigation, etc. (not being facetious ).

You have trouble following the money trail. Let ne draw you a picture.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Lawyers, in black robes or not, don't make for the best arbiters of complex science questions that scientists themselves haven't yet been able to figure out.

They're pretty good arbiters of evidence-based testimony, where called experts are expected to provide the specialized information in a way that the serious jurist or judge can grasp the salient facts in context.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Gord.. I think history has shown once man's footprint is removed nature is quick to move back in and repopulate the land with native species that existed before.. Amazon, Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia..

But what's your proposal for removing man's footprint - COVID-21? It might also be possible to simply tread more lightly, make less new messes, and to spend a bit more time cleaning up old ones. I know which remedy I prefer...

[Davy J]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

But what's your proposal for removing man's footprint

The oracle of Toronto has spoken..... Don't disagree or dissent. lest your post get deleted and the thread locked.