The Environment Thread

[JCon]

1 hour ago, Mark F said:

Invariably turns out to be a waste of time. I stopped doing it.

I did read your article though, thanks for that.

You're welcome. I don't post for those that ignore the science, only for those that want to read. 

It's amazing how many recounts climate deniers want. Same as Anti-Vaxxers and flat-Earthers. 

[Mark F]

1 hour ago, JCon said:

You're welcome. I don't post for those that ignore the science, only for those that want to read. 

It's amazing how many recounts climate deniers want. Same as Anti-Vaxxers and flat-Earthers. 

 

Looked up the author of the "no scientific concensus on climate change" article...James Taylor..... works at the Heartland institute. 

Quote

 

Heartland has long questioned the links between tobacco smoking, secondhand smoke, and lung cancer and the social costs imposed by smokers. One of Heartland's first campaigns was against tobacco regulation

During the 1990s, the Institute worked with tobacco company Philip Morris to question the links between smoking, secondhand smoke and health risks.  Philip Morris commissioned Heartland to write and distribute reports. Heartland published a policy study which summarized a jointly prepared report by the Association of Private Enterprise Education and Philip Morris. The Institute also undertook a variety of other activities on behalf of the tobacco industry, including meeting with legislators, holding off-the-record briefings, and producing op-eds, radio interviews, and letters.

A 1993 internal "Five Year Plan" from Philip Morris to address environmental tobacco smoke regulation called for support for the efforts of the Institute. In 1996, Heartland president and chief executive officer Joe Bast wrote an essay entitled "Joe Camel is Innocent!," which said that contributions from the tobacco industry to Republican political campaigns were most likely because Republicans "have been leading the fight against the use of 'junk science' by the Food and Drug Administration and its evil twin, the Environmental Protection Agency.

 

 

 

twisted.

 

Edited March 11, 2019 by Mark F

[kelownabomberfan]

29 minutes ago, Mark F said:

 

Looked up the author of the "no scientific concensus on climate change" article...James Taylor..... works at the Heartland institute.

OH NO!!! The HEARTLAND INSTITUTE!! RUN AWAY!!  RUN AWAY!!!  An opinion that doesn't match an innate confirmation bias may accidentally be read and digested!  RUN AWAY!!

29 minutes ago, Mark F said:

 

Was it you that explained to me how to get "ignore" to work?

If yes, can you remind me? I've forgotten how to do it.

thanks

Pretty simple.  You go to the top right hand corner and click on your user name.  You should get a option "ignored users".  Click on that, and you will get a prompt to type in the user name of the person you want to ignore.  That would include I assume anyone who remotely disagrees with any of your opinions, so probably going to be a long list.  I personally have no one on my list, as I don't see the point of ignoring people, especially if they have opinions that challenge mine.

[Mark F]

edit

Edited March 11, 2019 by Mark F

[Mark H.]

29 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

OH NO!!! The HEARTLAND INSTITUTE!! RUN AWAY!!  RUN AWAY!!!  An opinion that doesn't match an innate confirmation bias may accidentally be read and digested!  RUN AWAY!!

He cited evidence to back up his point of view - where's yours? 

[kelownabomberfan]

10 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

He cited evidence to back up his point of view - where's yours? 

where's my evidence about what?  What are you talking about?  

[Mark F]

edit

 

Edited March 11, 2019 by Mark F

[Mark H.]

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

where's my evidence about what?  What are you talking about?  

Your evidence that Heartland should be considered credible on this issue. 

[pigseye]

On ‎2019‎-‎03‎-‎09 at 2:16 PM, Mark F said:

Sea stars, also commonly called starfish, are among the most abundant animals along the U.S. West Coast. But now scientists say an epidemic spurred by warming ocean waters is decimating sunflower sea stars, a critical predator in kelp forests. The sea stars’ collapse could wipe out the shallow water ecosystems that provide a home for seals, sea otters and commercially important fish.

“The epidemic was catastrophic and widespread,” said Drew Harvell, a marine ecologist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, who led the new research. “Infectious disease is causing endangerment in not just sea stars but also corals and abalone and other species.”

When the researchers modeled sea surface temperatures with the starfishes’ decline, they found the two were related. Sunflower star population crashes coincided with warm sea surface temperature anomalies, the scientists report. The discovery means warmer temperatures enable the disease-driven plunge of sunflower sea stars, the researchers say. The animals’ potential for recovery is uncertain.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2019/01/30/west-coast-sea-stars-are-dying-out-fast/

 

You probably should have read the actual study

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau7042

It's an anomaly that has occurred before, the last time was the 1980's

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL063306

I know you mean well. 

[pigseye]

These results indicate that currently we cannot attribute changes in North Atlantic hurricane intensity to human related forcings.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GL081725

New study just released this month, won't get any publicity however. 

[pigseye]

8 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#2c7e8a724c7c

That studies been around awhile, here it is

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317

It's very complex but Watts did a good job explaining it, it compared the opinions of different industries, not just those working in oil and gas

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/03/science-or-science-fiction-97-climate-consensus-crumbles-in-new-survey/

The graph at the end shows the agreement by industry and overall only 36% agreed with the Kyoto Protocol. 

 

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

9 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

OH NO!!! The HEARTLAND INSTITUTE!! RUN AWAY!!  RUN AWAY!!!  An opinion that doesn't match an innate confirmation bias may accidentally be read and digested!  RUN AWAY!!

Pretty simple.  You go to the top right hand corner and click on your user name.  You should get a option "ignored users".  Click on that, and you will get a prompt to type in the user name of the person you want to ignore.  That would include I assume anyone who remotely disagrees with any of your opinions, so probably going to be a long list.  I personally have no one on my list, as I don't see the point of ignoring people, especially if they have opinions that challenge mine.

The fact that these organizations and people have differing opinions is not what is at issue here... it the fact that these are non-reputable organizations and people who continue to spread misinformation. 

You held up James Taylor's op-ed as definitive proof that the scientific consensus is false. Yet James is either woefully stupid or just evil because he completely misrepresents what the authors have said (which is par for the course with most of the information you usually provide as PROOF!). The authors even responded, many critics point out to many of the flaws in his misrepresentation of the work in his op-ed yet, he continues to publish it in the Heartland Institute after all the backlash.  

 

Also here ( i know its a waste of time, because you won't even read the link) this is the response to the lies you are spreading:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/02/14/james-taylor-misinterprets-study-by-180-degrees/

 

 

[Fatty Liver]

9 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

OH NO!!! The HEARTLAND INSTITUTE!! RUN AWAY!!  RUN AWAY!!!  An opinion that doesn't match an innate confirmation bias may accidentally be read and digested!  RUN AWAY!!

Here's what Wikipedia says about the Heartland Institute.

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Arlington Heights, Illinois, in the northwest suburbs of Chicago. The Institute conducts work on issues including education reform, government spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, global warming, hydraulic fracturing, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.^{[3][4]:233–34[5]} In the decade after 2000, the Heartland Institute became a leading financial supporter of climate change denial.^[6][7] It rejects the scientific consensus on global warming,^[8]and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.

The Heartland Institute received $675,500 from Exxon Mobil between 1998-2014, they are just one of approx. 5,000 individuals and organizations that sponsored their "research", since 2014 they no longer disclose funding sources.  If you pay them enough money they'll say whatever you want.  Can you connect the dots?

Here's a fun little chart.

 

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

12 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

LOL - yes, anything that questions an engrained confirmation bias must be a "waste of time".  We fully understand that.

I don't think confirmation bias straw man argument you repeatedly trot out is the issue here- its the constant parading around and spreading lies and misrepresentations you post- there is a pattern at work here.

 

You come up and post the latest and greatest lie (I don't think you believe it is a lie, I'm not calling you a liar-let's be very clear here) and when people show you the courtesy of reading the link that you have posted and respond informing you that it is a lie/misinformation/bad information, even providing you links with corrections and well sourced material that refutes the misinformation you post, you refuse to show the same courtesy by reading what they provide and accuse everyone of confirmation bias. 

That's why people think it's a waste of time to read your links and engage with you in a discussion over what you have posted. It has NOTHING to do with confirmation bias. The confirmation bias you are talking about might be your own that you project onto others. 

But I do still read what you post. I do read the links you post. I try to respond to your posts. I don't view it as a waste of time- frustrating, but not a waste of time.  You put the time in to post, so I will give them the courtesy they deserve and hope you do the same in return. 

[blue_gold_84]

18 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Maybe ask a WW2 veteran how "perfect" that equivalent is.  I doubt he/she would agree with you.

[kelownabomberfan]

14 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Your evidence that Heartland should be considered credible on this issue. 

Mark, that's not the issue here.  Why not let the words decide if the point is credible, not what Desmog blog or other website tells you what you are supposed to think is credible.  That's the point.  Judge on the content, not on what you are told you are supposed to read and what is "bad".  Otherwise we just end up in the book 1984.  Have a look at this video.  These guys have a slightly different take on the whole man-made climate change theory, but because they don't fall in line with the accepted (and totally manufactured) "consensus", they are met with anger and censorship, from both sides.  The science is so polarized right now, and it's not true "science".  And that's because politics, and billions of dollars, have polluted the entire scientific method.

 

[kelownabomberfan]

37 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Not sure what the above means, but I assume this is an excuse to NOT have to justify how you want to take an actual event that killed mega-millions and compare it to an unproven hypothesis that has been turned into a bogeyman by shysters who want your wallet.

[kelownabomberfan]

6 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

The fact that these organizations and people have differing opinions is not what is at issue here...

of course it is.  But it's an effective strategy to just immediately put your hands over your ears and scream rather than read anything that disagrees with what is considered "acceptable".  

6 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

it the fact that these are non-reputable organizations and people who continue to spread misinformation. 

Yes, another effective strategy - anyone who has a slightly different opinion is immediately deemed "non-reputable" by the very people that are being disagreed with, and whatever they say is now "misinformation".  Big Brother would be proud.

6 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

 

 

 

[kelownabomberfan]

 

6 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I don't think confirmation bias straw man argument you repeatedly trot out 

of course it's a "straw man".  Good grief, is there like a cheat sheet for you guys to just hit people with clichés whenever anyone has any sort of different opinion?  "Straw man"  Logical Fallacy.  I see this on other forums too.  It's like you've not only been indoctrinated, but you all also sing off the same song sheet.  Whoever taught you to never question anything has really done a good job of making sure those protections stay in place.  This is pretty sad stuff.

[Mark F]

 

honest discussion of climate change derailed.

 

mission accomplished.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Mark F

[kelownabomberfan]

If that's all it took to "derail honest discussion", then it wasn't very honest to begin with.  How about injecting some "sensible realism" into the chicken little hysterics?  Is that too "derailing"?  What do sensible realists do?

Sensible realists understand the likelihood of today's science accurately establishing year-by-year global temperatures in the distant past, and refuse to buy into the notion we must take drastic action to address purported problems supported primarily by "hottest year" hyperbole and failed predictive modelling.

Sensible realists also recognize the disturbing similarities between skepticalscience.com and the Heartland Institute and other agenda-driven sources of information, and question their willingness to accept these sources without serious consideration of those shortcomings, along with the shortcomings of wikipedia as a source for facts upon which to base costly public policy.

Sensible realists tend to prefer we use our resources to address pressing issues with solutions where the effects are measurably effective in addressing the stated problem. Which is why we are entirely happy to support genuine pollution reduction initiatives, but unwilling to support efforts with the purported intent of controlling the global climate.

[blue_gold_84]

Yeah, nothing shouts sensible realism like spouting off tinfoil hat terms like indoctrination, bogeyman, Big Brother, Orwellian, and 1984.

Now we wait for this thread to get locked again.

[Mark H.]

4 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Mark, that's not the issue here.  Why not let the words decide if the point is credible, not what Desmog blog or other website tells you what you are supposed to think is credible.  That's the point.  Judge on the content, not on what you are told you are supposed to read and what is "bad".  Otherwise we just end up in the book 1984.  Have a look at this video.  These guys have a slightly different take on the whole man-made climate change theory, but because they don't fall in line with the accepted (and totally manufactured) "consensus", they are met with anger and censorship, from both sides.  The science is so polarized right now, and it's not true "science".  And that's because politics, and billions of dollars, have polluted the entire scientific method.

The scientific method takes sources into consideration. What Mark F said about that company’s stance on second hand tobacco smoke is relevant. It makes me question their credibility - as well it should. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, Mark F said:

 

honest discussion of climate change derailed.

 

mission accomplished.

Yup, and soon enough, like all the other threads- he will get this one locked down. it's his M.O.

[Mark F]

56 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Yeah, nothing shouts sensible realism like spouting off tinfoil hat terms like indoctrination, bogeyman, Big Brother, Orwellian, and 1984.

Now we wait for this thread to get locked again.

1. Deny or Defend Your Inconsistencies

2. Evade Questions,\Hedge What You Say (do not respond to questions about the article)

3. Ignore the Evidence (The article is completely wrong)

4. Ignore the Main Point 

5. Insist Loudly on a Minor Point (people won't listen to the other side)

6. Make (Sweeping) Glittering Generalization(subject is still open)

7. Shift the Ground (no longer talking about climate)

8. Talk in Vague Generalities

9. Always claim the high ground  (open minded, optimistic.)

Edited March 12, 2019 by Mark F