Mass Plankton Die-Off

[osirissail]

Originally Posted by hpeer

. . . This is the biggest conspiracy ever, and we (well almost) all take an active part in it.

I suppose you could call it that, I would call it "human nature" which contains ingredients called "avarice" and "self preservation" and "ego." Humans naturally want to accumulate the maximum "stuff" possible including homes, mates, and money. The more "stuff" you have the more secure you feel. And that leads to ego which can be described by the axiom "The guy who dies with the most "toys" (stuff) wins!"

[mintyspilot]

Originally Posted by GordMay

As is my habit.
Notwithstand, I can't fathom what point, of yours, I may have made.
Could it be that the worst case scenario, could be mass employment?

I started to reply but it quickly became a rant and I'll have Tao Jones on my tail if I post it, so I'll try again. Having said that 'hpeer' is saying something similar, but with a lot less invective.

Nope - failed again and had to delete it. I really get going sometimes.....

[hpeer]

On another forum there was a nice exchange where someone posted 5 citations to explain to his uncle why he thought there really was climate change and why you should be worried.

I thought it was kind of a nice mix. It is all a fairly easy read or listen. Perhaps the most compelling in the first that states:

97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.

OK Jim, Here are the five citations we compiled on global warming. I think you will find all articles are mercifully brief. After reading these 4 articles and watching the video (which is about three minutes long) I will be interested to know whether you can still say that you are no more concerned about GW than you are about an asteroid destroying the earth.

The first is about scientific consensus on human activity as the cause of GW

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... e-change/1

The second one is a video on Arctic Sea ice

The third is about escaping arctic methane

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/en ... 5_ST_N.htm

The forth is about world wide temperature increases

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00859.html

And the last is about the World's oceans becoming more acidic.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092821.htm

[osirissail]

Originally Posted by hpeer

. . . Perhaps the most compelling in the first that states: 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.

Well, you certainty cannot have an objective discussion and even have a sliver of hope to change anybody's mind when statments like the above are bandied about. Not only are they patently false they are grossly misleading and show how desperate those in the "business" of climate change are to ensure their income and perks.
- - The actual statement from the report is: Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,. . .

Please notice that the 97 out of 100 climate research scientists in the survey were not going to put themselves on the unemployment list by saying their own work was not valid.

And that was in the first citation/link above. When such a glaring misrepresentation occurs, it discredits everything that follows whether the stuff that follows is of more validity or not.

[senormechanico]

Years ago when I was about 8, there was a TV commercial for Dentyne gum which had some guy in a white coat trying to look like a dentist.

His quote in the commercial always stuck with me as total BS.

He said, "Of those dentists who HAD AN OPINION' 2 out of 3 recommend Dentyne gum."

It might have been true, but the sample size of dentists polled could have been thousands or even millions and maybe only 3 had an opinion.

Yeah, I know. Thread drift.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by osirissail

... (1) The actual statement from the report is:
“Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. . .”

(2) Please notice that the 97 out of 100 climate research scientists in the survey were not going to put themselves on the unemployment list by saying their own work was not valid.

(3) And that was in the first citation/link above. When such a glaring misrepresentation occurs, it discredits everything that follows whether the stuff that follows is of more validity or not.

Somehow, I don’t think that you would include your rephrasing (para 2, above) as a glaring misrepresentation of what was actually said.
Respectfuly, I certainly would.

As you note (para 3), this doesn’t disprove the validity of your conclusions, just the rout by which you came to them. Of course, it does even less to support their validity.

[osirissail]

Your labeling my 2nd paragraph as a "rephrasing" is a misrepresentation it is in not in any way a "rephrasing" but a logical opinion as to the motivation of the group of "scientists" surveyed.
- - As is the third paragraph which is a considered opinion from years of PR experience. When you start off a dissertation/ discussion with an obvious misrepresentation you raise "red flags" in the minds of your learned audience as to the worth/validity of what follows.
- - The point here is that removing salient modifiers and qualifiers from a statement radically change the statement from its original form. For instance take the statement that "97 out of 100 animals who are foxes think that stealing chickens from a hen house is okay," Changing that to "97 out of 100 animals think that stealing chickens from a hen house is okay" is a glaring misrepresentation of the original statement. I am certain the chickens would not agree that it is okay.

[highseas]

They say we have another 20 years of existing oil,thats it.Global warming is being knowingly sped up by the oil corporations, to get at the arctic sooner.

[hummingway]

Originally Posted by osirissail

.

Please notice that the 97 out of 100 climate research scientists in the survey were not going to put themselves on the unemployment list by saying their own work was not valid.

One of the problems I see with the climate change debate are statements of this type. The people who have the training and do the research into climate change are going to be the climate research scientists ... where is your data coming from? Do you have behaviorists doing studies on clmate research scientists to support your claims? If you haven't yet watched this video - in its entirety - you really should. http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episo...d/302#webextra

Not that I have any expectation that your conclusion will be that he is simply trying to preserve his job despite the fact he is dying and one of the foremost authorities and were he to survive not likely to lose his university posting.

[stark]

Originally Posted by osirissail

Your labeling my 2nd paragraph as a "rephrasing" is a misrepresentation it is in not in any way a "rephrasing" but a logical opinion as to the motivation of the group of "scientists" surveyed.
- - As is the third paragraph which is a considered opinion from years of PR experience. When you start off a dissertation/ discussion with an obvious misrepresentation you raise "red flags" in the minds of your learned audience as to the worth/validity of what follows.
- - The point here is that removing salient modifiers and qualifiers from a statement radically change the statement from its original form. For instance take the statement that "97 out of 100 animals who are foxes think that stealing chickens from a hen house is okay," Changing that to "97 out of 100 animals think that stealing chickens from a hen house is okay" is a glaring misrepresentation of the original statement. I am certain the chickens would not agree that it is okay.

Originally Posted by hummingway

One of the problems I see with the climate change debate are statements of this type. The people who have the training and do the research into climate change are going to be the climate research scientists ... where is your data coming from? Do you have behaviorists doing studies on clmate research scientists to support your claims? If you haven't yet watched this video - in its entirety - you really should. http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episo...d/302#webextra

Not that I have any expectation that your conclusion will be that he is simply trying to preserve his job despite the fact he is dying and one of the foremost authorities and were he to survive not likely to lose his university posting.

Seriously, why are people always harking on the scientists? Academic scientists are trained to be as objective and unbiased as humanly possible and trust me, if $$$ was the motive, their talents would serve them much better elsewhere. I will agree though, that the media tends to sensationalize things (they are trained for that). But the evidence that humans are contributing greatly to global climate change is substantial. And I have yet to see any credible evidence that humans are not contributing to climate change.

[hpeer]

Here is something that may be of interest to this group:

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming A Grist Special Series


Series Intro

Below is a complete listing of the articles in "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic," a series by Coby Beck containing responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming. There are four separate taxonomies; arguments are divided by:

• Stages of Denial,
• Scientific Topics,
• Types of Argument, and
• Levels of Sophistication.

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | A Grist Special Series | Grist

[osirissail]

Very interesting: here are some more links.
The first is the link provided in post #168 which grossly misrepresented what the abstract actually stated about who the 97 out of 100 were.

Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com

That origin abstract is at:
Expert credibility in climate change

The abstract is very careful to fully describe exactly who the the 97 out of 100 are. You have to read the abstract very carefully because there are a lot of important modifiers like: "suggest"; "has not been conducted"; and more importantly the real zinger in (ii) where those who disagree with the ACC choir are apparently denigrated - until - you refer back to the first link and read paragraph 6 where the basis for the apparent denigration is qualified/explained.

- - As to " if $$$ was the motive, their talents would serve them much better elsewhere." Look at these two links:
Climate Scientist Salaries in Cambridge, MA | Simply Hired

Climate Scientist Salaries in Washington, DC | Simply Hired

I think salaries in the $100K range are not to be sniffed at. They are certainly well above the charted average salaries for US occupations as shown in:
Average Salaries - Job Descriptions - Average Job Salaries - PayScale

- - The bottom line point is the ACC scientists keep shooting themselves in the foot all the time with what appears to be very slanted pronouncements that are further misrepresented by the various news media. What starts out as a reasonable conclusion on their part with lots of qualifiers to show that their conclusions are reasonable but not absolute, gets turned into a litany of absolute doom and disaster predictions by other people.
- - And the revelations of the East Anglia hacked emails showed that there are groups within the choir who are or have turned the discussion into a religion-type - "if you don't agree, you must be stupid/inferior/lesser scientist. Not that this is new or different from what happened back in Nicholaus Copernicus' time way back when. Like him we will have to wait a few centuries or millennium to find the real story.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by stark

Seriously, why are people always harking on the scientists? Academic scientists are trained to be as objective and unbiased as humanly possible and trust me, if $$$ was the motive, their talents would serve them much better elsewhere.

Look back at the cold fusion debacle if you think academic scientists are objective.

[stark]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Look back at the cold fusion debacle if you think academic scientists are objective.

Yeah, thats right. There are examples of 'bad science' or rather 'bad scientists', but these are isolated to individuals. Even the "cold fusion fiction debacle" from a single research group that published before understanding their data. The rest of the cold fusion research was accurately reported and even the leaders of the field admitted that the prospects for success were limited and far off. The payoff of success, however would be great enough to warrant the initial investment (same way venture capitalist work)

[Therapy]

Stark,

There is a lot of questionable data in this debate also.
There is a lot of proved inaccurate data too. There is a difference.
What I note is that all this stuff about what will happen has been spit out of a computer model.
These models are fraught with "one sidedness".

Lots of numbers out there.

One that sticks in my mind is that if every personal conveyance was turned off tomorrow the total world production of CO2 the day after would drop by 0.02%.

These global warming, err climate change (a new term now) arguments continue as Science is the new religion. This will produce sects as in the past and they will war with each other, like in the past.

One group will try to dominate the other by proving they are right and convincing (or forcing) others to become compliant. They will then "win" and eat better.