Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Aug 14, 2020 12:51 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 195 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science" 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1581
Thanks: 1763
Thanked: 789 times in 635 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
ant wrote:
Harry,
Why do you disagree (i assume you will) with this published study?

http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/21/stud ... 6PWWa.dpbs


ant,

I don't disagree with the study, though to some extent I disagree with its conclusions. If they have cherry-picked data, that will be uncovered and addressed. They use spectral analysis, but I could not tell from the summary in "no tricks" website what test they used to verify whether the recent pattern departs from the cyclical components they are comparing to. When there is a real cyclical source, with a physical basis, it will have a strong signature in the data with spectral analysis. A departure in one relatively small part of the data would normally be treated as random noise by statistical analysis, unless its scale seriously departed from that of any noise in the past. In other words, we should worry that their time frame is so long that the signature of warming is simply not strong enough and dramatic enough to show up with standard statistical analysis in the frequency domain - yet. Remember that it is a cumulative effect.

I am guessing that others have done this kind of analysis before them, and that there is something they omitted to analyze, but I am happy to let scientists sort that out.

You should give some thought to the implications if they are correct. We have GHGs blanketing the earth, driving a warming process. There may be a solar source off-setting it with cooling on a cyclical basis. That means when the solar source turns to the up part of the cycle, we are going to have all the GHG warming their model has to treat as random, plus an effect as strong in the heating direction as the offsetting part has been in the cooling direction. So the "pause" will be followed by a "surge".

We certainly cannot afford to wait 30 years to see if their prediction of cooling takes place (it won't, because they are wrong to treat recent departure from cycle as random). Because the effects are cumulative, our goose would be cooked by then.

ant wrote:
Let me guess: because the science has been settled that solar activity does not have a great enough impact to influence climate change.
You will dismiss findings like these because of the power of disconfirmation bias.


No, solar variation is factored into most climate models these days. The sunspot cycle has even been used in economic models which have no climate modelling at all, and it is too strong a force to be ignored. That is probably why the analysis of the "pause" which I cited above included it in the factors which are working to hold down the rising temps over the last 15 years.

I am not familiar with the analysis of the 200 year DeVries/Suess cycle, but eyeballing the data they give on their plots tells me that the recent "errors" or "random fluctuations" are quite large, are on the warm side, and thus represent something to worry about. I simply do not believe the quote combined with graph ("figure 4") that implies there is literally "no trace of aperiodic effects". The website implies, without explanation, that there is no random variation around the cyclical components in the data. That would be such a strong conclusion that an honest presentation would explain figure 4 to make the point stronger, instead of leaving it as an inference without explanation.

Again, if they are right that the DV/S force will hold down temperatures, but wrong that the recent difference from cycle is random, then we may get a reprieve from catastrophe but, if we do nothing, will get hammered when both effects coincide. And since we have every scientific reason to think that a non-random basis is the truth, and only their modelling assumption to say otherwise, we still have a strong and urgent reason to limit CO2 concentrations.

Consider the science that has been done to distinguish between GHG-based warming and solar-based warming. If recent warming is due to solar variation, then the upper atmosphere would be warmed as much as the lower atmosphere, close to earth. In fact what happened instead is what the GHG-based model predicts - the upper atmosphere is cooled by the reduction in returning infrared rays (blocked by GHGs) and the warming happened only to the lower atmosphere.

I am sorry your worldview leads you to discount real science and grasp at straws to hope all those scientists are wrong. You are confused, and sadly so. But the rest of us cannot afford to wait until the proof is strong enough to satisfy you, much less the shills who run your website sources for the corporate money it brings in, and the cranks like Gosselin of "no tricks zone" who seem to do it for the thrill rather than the money.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/12/deni ... arity.html

Interestingly, Gosselin seems to have gone on the record with his ice age worries (he is a psychologist, and thus knows squat about spectral analysis or climate science). In 2020 we will see a sudden drop of more than 2 degrees in world temperature, according to our friend the psychologist. Well, you have to say this about Gosselin, he is not shy about falsifiability. My question is why anyone would wait five years to see if a psychologist is correct and the scientists are wrong, when we know there will be another crank popping up by then to say, "Wait a little longer, I have a different theory!" It looks exactly like those predictions of the end of the world "before Haile Selassie dies" or "12 years after the Middle East war" etc., etc. that we all forget afterward but some people get worked up about beforehand.



Mon Aug 24, 2015 4:00 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5842
Thanks: 1366
Thanked: 956 times in 822 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Quote:
That means when the solar source turns to the up part of the cycle, we are going to have all the GHG warming their model has to treat as random, plus an effect as strong in the heating direction as the offsetting part has been in the cooling direction. So the "pause" will be followed by a "surge".


Is this a prediction based on past observation? Has it been tested? Is this your opinion?


Quote:
If recent warming is due to solar variation, then the upper atmosphere would be warmed as much as the lower atmosphere, close to earth. In fact what happened instead is what the GHG-based model predicts - the upper atmosphere is cooled by the reduction in returning infrared rays (blocked by GHGs) and the warming happened only to the lower atmosphere.


This is an excellent point you've made and perhaps the best fingerprint evidence there is. It's the one that convinces me the most, as a layman.

Quote:
I am sorry your worldview leads you to discount real science and grasp at straws to hope all those scientists are wrong. You are confused, and sadly so.


You don't know what the F*** my worldview is.
As it relates directly to climate change, I'm already on records as stating I agree we need to cut emissions.
I'm not hoping anyone is wrong.
You're losing it here like some crazy-ass cult leader.


Quote:
. My question is why anyone would wait five years to see if a psychologist is correct and the scientists are wrong, when we know there will be another crank popping up by then to say, "Wait a little longer, I have a different theory!" It looks exactly like those predictions of the end of the world "before Haile Selassie dies" or "12 years after the Middle East war" etc., etc. that we all forget afterward but some people get worked up about beforehand.


I can list (and have linked to a list) all the crazy climate disaster predictions that have NOT come to pass, that were made by climate "experts"
You've ignored them.
Don't throw stones in a glass house.



Mon Aug 24, 2015 10:59 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5842
Thanks: 1366
Thanked: 956 times in 822 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Here's a story about some "experts" that caused the death of a 19 year old girl that was used as a ginnie pig for an environmental air quality experiment.

https://junksciencecom.files.wordpress. ... office.pdf

Anyone hear about this?

Harry,
I'm sorry your worldview justifies something like this.
(am I being presumptuous?)



Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:04 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4554
Location: NC
Thanks: 1989
Thanked: 2052 times in 1536 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
ant wrote:
Here's a story about some "experts" that caused the death of a 19 year old girl that was used as a ginnie pig for an environmental air quality experiment.

https://junksciencecom.files.wordpress. ... office.pdf

Anyone hear about this?

Harry,
I'm sorry your worldview justifies something like this.
(am I being presumptuous?)


Jesus, how much time do you spend every day just looking for stuff like this? It boggles the mind.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Mon Aug 24, 2015 12:11 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5842
Thanks: 1366
Thanked: 956 times in 822 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
geo wrote:
ant wrote:
Here's a story about some "experts" that caused the death of a 19 year old girl that was used as a ginnie pig for an environmental air quality experiment.

https://junksciencecom.files.wordpress. ... office.pdf

Anyone hear about this?

Harry,
I'm sorry your worldview justifies something like this.
(am I being presumptuous?)


Jesus, how much time do you spend every day just looking for stuff like this? It boggles the mind.


About 5 minutes.

It boogles the mind just how much isn't reported in mainstream ideologically biased news, huh?



Mon Aug 24, 2015 12:45 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4554
Location: NC
Thanks: 1989
Thanked: 2052 times in 1536 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
ant wrote:
geo wrote:
ant wrote:
Here's a story about some "experts" that caused the death of a 19 year old girl that was used as a ginnie pig for an environmental air quality experiment.

https://junksciencecom.files.wordpress. ... office.pdf

Anyone hear about this?

Harry,
I'm sorry your worldview justifies something like this.
(am I being presumptuous?)


Jesus, how much time do you spend every day just looking for stuff like this? It boggles the mind.


About 5 minutes.

It boogles the mind just how much isn't reported in mainstream ideologically biased news, huh?


How newsworthy is this accidental death? People die all the time from a variety of mishaps. So why the focus on this one? You need to connect the dots for me.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Mon Aug 24, 2015 4:44 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5842
Thanks: 1366
Thanked: 956 times in 822 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
[/quote]
How newsworthy is this accidental death? People die all the time from a variety of mishaps. So why the focus on this one? You need to connect the dots for me.[/quote]


A MISHAP??!
Is that your daily euphemism for us?

An environmental health climate study done on a human being that results in the death of said Human Being is a "mishap"
And we achieved exactly what in return for this "mishap" Geo?

Where's the empathy here?

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!



Last edited by ant on Mon Aug 24, 2015 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Aug 24, 2015 5:12 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4554
Location: NC
Thanks: 1989
Thanked: 2052 times in 1536 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
ant wrote:

How newsworthy is this accidental death? People die all the time from a variety of mishaps. So why the focus on this one? You need to connect the dots for me.[/quote]


A MISHAP??!
Is that your daily euphemism for us?

An environmental health climate study done on a human being that results in the death of said Human Being is a "mishap"
And we achieved exactly what in return for this "mishap" Geo?

Where's the empathy here?

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]

I don't enough details to make such judgements. Either do you. From the article:

"The cause of death has not yet been determined, pending the examination and report of the county medical examiner."

It sounds to me like a routine medical procedure which typically has a low risk. The patient may have had an adverse reaction. Again, why are you posting this here? What is your point?


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Mon Aug 24, 2015 5:20 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5842
Thanks: 1366
Thanked: 956 times in 822 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Quote:
Mr. Jackson said the university's inquiry showed that her death apparently involved "an
unusually high dosage of lidocaine. high enough to be potentially fatal." Lidocaine is a
topical anesthetic applied inside the throat to suppress the gag reflex induced by the
procedure, in which a flexible fiber optic bronchoscope is used to obtain brush biopsies
from tissue in the lower lobe of the lungs


Read the rest of the article/
There's pretty darn good indicators it's related directly to the experiments, Geo.

It's appalling that you're dismissing it as not newsworthy because the med exam report hasn't been read by you.

my goodness. geeezz



Mon Aug 24, 2015 5:41 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4554
Location: NC
Thanks: 1989
Thanked: 2052 times in 1536 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
ant wrote:
Quote:
Mr. Jackson said the university's inquiry showed that her death apparently involved "an
unusually high dosage of lidocaine. high enough to be potentially fatal." Lidocaine is a
topical anesthetic applied inside the throat to suppress the gag reflex induced by the
procedure, in which a flexible fiber optic bronchoscope is used to obtain brush biopsies
from tissue in the lower lobe of the lungs


Read the rest of the article/
There's pretty darn good indicators it's related directly to the experiments, Geo.

It's appalling that you're dismissing it as not newsworthy because the med exam report hasn't been read by you.

my goodness. geeezz


Okay, so it was an accidental death which resulted from incompetence or human error or maybe even malice. We don't really know at this point. But again, what is your point? Why do I have to keep asking the same question? You're the one who posted the article. Why is this news report relevant?


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:40 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5842
Thanks: 1366
Thanked: 956 times in 822 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Can someone please please tell me what we're NOT going to blame on global warming?

http://m.sfgate.com/science/article/Mys ... 458563.php



Mon Aug 24, 2015 10:08 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1581
Thanks: 1763
Thanked: 789 times in 635 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
ant wrote:
Is this a prediction based on past observation? Has it been tested? Is this your opinion?


It is a straightforward implication of the website's interpretation of their analysis. Do you detect some problem with it? Do you understand the idea of cycles? Have you looked at the "cycles vs. data" graphs on the website? If the departure from cycle is GHG driven, then we add it to the up part of the cycle, as well as the down part. The result looks like the Al Gore hockey stick graph, but with a pause.

Scientists are people. They will explain their models if people want to understand.

Quote:

You're losing it here like some crazy-ass cult leader.


I am not the one quoting crank websites. What motivates you to go find the smoke being put out by the denialists? A confused worldview.

Quote:
I can list (and have linked to a list) all the crazy climate disaster predictions that have NOT come to pass, that were made by climate "experts"
You've ignored them. .


No, I did not ignore them, I pointed out that they are not integral parts of the basic model which implies that we need to do something about warming. Instead they are tangential efforts to make the models more accurate and comprehensive. This is a good thing - no mistakes would mean no one is publishing at the learning stage, but instead everyone is waiting until their model predictions are confirmed by experience. That would not be science. It would also mean, because of the cumulative effect of CO2 emissions, that it is too late to avoid losing the ice caps.

Do this. Make a list of mistakes whose correction reinforces the need to act. Find out which things the models "got wrong" by being too conservative. You could start with tundra methane and proceed to ice cap melting. Ocean acidification is another. A mistake is going to be random in effect - some will overstate the reason for concern, some will understate it. Classifying one side as evidence of bias is itself evidence of bias.

Or just stick to your confirmation bias, and get more info from the echo chamber for denialists.



Tue Aug 25, 2015 3:49 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5941
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2379
Thanked: 2316 times in 1751 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Harry Marks wrote:
I am not the one quoting crank websites.


Hi Harry, glad to see your pig singing teaching efforts. You are more patient than me. Here is a more successful example



_________________
http://rtulip.net


Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:24 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1581
Thanks: 1763
Thanked: 789 times in 635 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
ant wrote:
Quote:
"an
unusually high dosage of lidocaine. high enough to be potentially fatal." Lidocaine is a
topical anesthetic used to suppress the gag reflex induced by the procedure


Sounds to me like it has more to do with why anesthesiologists have such high malpractice insurance rates than it is revealing about climate science.



Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:42 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5842
Thanks: 1366
Thanked: 956 times in 822 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Quote:
Even the U.N. doesn’t agree with him on that one: In its 2012 Special Report on Extreme Events, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there is “high agreement” among leading experts that long-term trends in weather disasters are not attributable to human-caused climate change


http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate ... 1429832149



Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:30 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 195 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Announcements 

• Promote Your FICTION Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:33 pm

• Promote Your NON-FICTION Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 pm



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Community Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Book Discussion Leaders

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
Promote your FICTION book
Promote your NON-FICTION book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank