Science: Only correct if it fits the popular narrative

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

8 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Right, natural gas traders are, by default, climate experts and have an unbiased opinion.

Insurance underwriters have a far better long term perspective on climate change. 

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

17 minutes ago, NickW said:

Insurance underwriters have a far better long term perspective on climate change. 

 

Yeah? Right up there with Greta.

[NickW + 2,714]

1 minute ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Yeah? Right up there with Greta.

Care to explain why gas traders have an expert unbiased insight into Climate change? 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Probably because they studied under insurance underwriters.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

46 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Yeah? Right up there with Greta.

This comment makes no sense. Seriously. 

Insurance underwriters are private entities that calculate risk for a living. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

So that makes them climate change experts? Where do they get the data to assess the risk? Do they have a hidden agenda or an ulterior motive?

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

So that makes them climate change experts? Where do they get the data to assess the risk? Do they have a hidden agenda or an ulterior motive?

So what  makes natural Gas Traders experts?

Your previous comment; 

Right, natural gas traders are, by default, climate experts and have an unbiased opinion.

 

As for Insurance underwriters - they are generally not experts do but they do evaluate risks based on the evidence trail.

[specinho + 470]

On 10/25/2019 at 5:44 AM, El Nikko said:

the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. 

 

Here's may be a rough guide on how descrepancies like the figures mentioned could be happening (correct me if I'm wrong. Secondary schooling time has been such a long tme ago):

In the sampling and population estimating method called quadrat technique,

population = number of individual counted per segment * total area /quadrat area

1. If there is one individual counted per 9 m2 segment, then

population = 1 * 9 / 1 = 9

2. If there is 3 individual counted per 9 m2 segment, then

population = 3 * 9 / 1 = 27

3. If the extrapolation continues to increase in area covered, say, 1km radiant => 1000 000 m2

population = 1 * 1 000 000 / 1 = 1 000 000.

Or

On 10/30/2019 at 1:43 AM, PE Scott said:

I would imagine the models they use for predicting polar bear populations are very much the same way in terms of generating different results based on the same data sets.

Extrapolation is often a technique that gives meaning to the data.......... in a funny way sometimes.

7 hours ago, remake it said:

Oh, ok, so what do we tell the polar bears?

6 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Op-Ed: If Global Warming Is Real, How Do You Explain Ice Cream?

Ice cream melts faster during day time 

Edited November 16, 2019 by specinho

[remake it + 288]

4 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Insurance underwriters are private entities that calculate risk for a living.

And the companies  lose $billions if  - actually it's when - they get it wrong.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

7 hours ago, NickW said:

Insurance underwriters have a far better long term perspective on climate change. 

 

Agreed.  But my broader point stands: most people who talk about climate have as much expertise about it as I have about the science of extracting oil from the ground.  Climate science has its own jargon and field of expertise, more complex then even oil extraction, which is why I prefer to avoid the broad sweeping generalizations coming from both sides.  If you don't know even the most basic concepts of climate and weather like "ridges" and "troughs" then you should probably stay away from these discussions.  

If you want to discuss climate, let's discuss the details.  There is indeed plenty to debate.  Just go to any of the dedicated weather forums and see the shi-storms that can arise there.  

https://www.americanwx.com/bb/forum/20-weather-forecasting-and-discussion/

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[remake it + 288]

7 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

If you want to discuss climate, let's discuss the details.  Assuming anyone here actually knows anything.  

You confuse climate with weather - did it twice already - so best you stick to what you know, especially seeing you think science is about politics, in case you were not clear on what you think you know 🤔.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Climatology and meteorology are two branches of the same tree.  They share common concepts, basic terms, and ideas.  If you don't know the basics of one of the fields, you're not qualified to talk about the other.

I'm not directing this comment only at you, Remake, but at the opening poster, too, who made this thread in the first place to make a political point.

As I said earlier: most people aren't interested in learning science.  What they're interested in instead is using bits and pieces of science to beat other people over their heads like a cudgel.

Edited November 16, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[remake it + 288]

12 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Climatology and meteorology are two branches of the same tree.  They share common concepts, basic terms, and ideas.  If you don't know the basics of one of the fields, you're not qualified to talk about the other.

Weather is a subset,and beyond atmospheric physics and modelling they would be hard pressed to speak on the same terms.

20 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

I'm not directing this comment only at you, Remake, but at the opening poster, too, who made this thread in the first place to make a political point

Ah, but the OP did not realize this because he genuinely thought this was about how someone with supposed scientific authority was being sidelined because her desk studies were opposite to some contrived narrative (you know, the bit where things like evolution are fake news because scientists just make up stuff so they can publish in trash like Nature), but yes, you nailed it in terms of non-government politics.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

41 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

As I said earlier: most people aren't interested in learning science.  What they're interested in instead is using bits and pieces of science to beat other people over their heads like a cudgel.

 

The Globalists Are Openly Admitting To Their Population Control Agenda - And That's A Bad Sign

... The elites had found a new scientific front for their eugenics obsession: Climate science. In the early 1990's the Club Of Rome published a book called 'The First Global Revolution'. In it they state:

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes. and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

The statement comes from Chapter 5 – The Vacuum, which covers their position on the need for global government. The quote is relatively clear; a common enemy must be conjured in order to trick humanity into uniting under a single banner, and the elites see environmental catastrophe, caused by mankind itself, as the best possible motivator. It also outlines the perfect rationale for population control – Mankind is the enemy, therefore, mankind as a species must be kept under strict supervision and his proliferation must be restricted.

The Club of Rome and the UN agenda have always been intimately connected. In the 1990's at the same time 'The First Global Revolution' was being published, UN assistant secretary general Robert Muller was publishing his manifesto which is now collected on a website called 'Good Morning World'. Muller argues that global governance must be achieved using the idea of “protecting the Earth” and environmentalism as the key components. Through fear of environmental Apocalypse, the public could be convinced to accept global government as a necessary nanny state to keep society from destroying itself.

In a paper titled 'Proper Earth Government: A Framework And Ways To Create It' Robert Muller outlines how climate change could be used to convince the masses of the need for global government. Integral to his plan were the introduction of a new “global religion”, and population controls.

It should come as no surprise that the UN established the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) and that this panel and it's offshoots are now at the forefront of the argument for population reduction. As we close in on the end date for the UN's Agenda 2030, which calls for a radical shift of human production from oil and other large scale energy sources into small scale “renewable energies”, there is only 10 years left for the globalists to achieve their goals if they hope to meet their announced deadline. This would require a violent change in human society and most of all industrialized nations.

The human population would have to be reduced dramatically in order to survive on the meager energy output of renewables alone. A disaster of epic proportions would have to take place soon so that the globalists could then spend the next decade using the resulting fear to convince the surviving population that global governance is needed. Without aggressive crisis and change most people would never go along with the UN's agenda, out of simple desire for self preservation. Even many leftists, once exposed to the true nature of carbon controls and population reduction, might have second thoughts when they realize they could be affected.  ...

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The Club of Rome and the UN agenda

Read this earlier Tom, thought you'd like this article haha.

Ah, I read on Hedge, not Alt, but same thing.

18 minutes ago, remake it said:

you know, the bit where things like evolution are fake news

If this is sarcasm then we agree on something. It only took like 3 months but I knew we would eventually  

Edited November 16, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Oh we are stealing memes now are we? 

I see. The master stealing from the meme student now.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

8 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Oh we are stealing memes now are we? 

I see. The master stealing from the meme student now.

Part of meming is "stealing" good graphics from anywhere one finds them and then adding to the graphics to make a point and / or provide humor.

Greta holding Jello with a disappointed look on her face is a great graphic.  So yes, I stole it.  Thank you.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

Weather is a subset,and beyond atmospheric physics and modelling they would be hard pressed to speak on the same terms.

Ah, but the OP did not realize this because he genuinely thought this was about how someone with supposed scientific authority was being sidelined because her desk studies were opposite to some contrived narrative (you know, the bit where things like evolution are fake news because scientists just make up stuff so they can publish in trash like Nature), but yes, you nailed it in terms of non-government politics.

The only science that American conservatives believe in is the type that can make them money.  At least that's been my impression.  Not saying this is good or bad- I have mixed feelings towards this attitude.

Edited November 16, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[PE Scott + 563]

2 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

Climatology and meteorology are two branches of the same tree.  They share common concepts, basic terms, and ideas.  If you don't know the basics of one of the fields, you're not qualified to talk about the other.

I'm not directing this comment only at you, Remake, but at the opening poster, too, who made this thread in the first place to make a political point.

As I said earlier: most people aren't interested in learning science.  What they're interested in instead is using bits and pieces of science to beat other people over their heads like a cudgel.

My original point, laid out in excruciating detail, was that a person shouldn't be fired because their research is in opposition to a narrative. Is this political?

My involvement in "science" over the years is why I find this sort of thing upsetting. I feel like the content of my postings should make this pretty evident. I typically respect what you have to say @Zhong Lu, but the only bit of "science" I've used here is the scientific method part where you don't represent facts as theories and you take a professional approach to defending your position instead of firing someone who disagrees.

 

[Zhong Lu + 845]

It is political.  The firing was politically motivated.  Similarly, the post about the firing in the Washington Times is politically motivated as well.  Similarly, the post about it on a discussion forum with lots of climate change skeptics is politically motivated too.  

All sides are trying to use "politics" and "bits of science" to advance their narrative.  Also, note how these debates turn into giant insult-fests.  If that's not a sign of "politics" then I don't know what is.  

Edited November 16, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

I’m sooooo drunk it’s untrue

but even now I know Remake it is wrong

[remake it + 288]

5 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

My original point, laid out in excruciating detail, was that a person shouldn't be fired because their research is in opposition to a narrative. Is this political?

1. Person not fired
2. Person has carried our zero science on topic
3. There is actual science, and then there is this contrived "narrative" - a term invented by the science denial community to suggest that knowledge is false by recreating it in a false narrative (ie a faux-restatement of the science except without any scientific rigor).
4. Person actively contributes to science denial and has a website on polar bears which is inaccurate.
5. Person is a liability to educational institutions and their pursuit of knowledge.

[PE Scott + 563]

10 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

The only science that American conservatives believe in is the type that can make them money. 

These kinds of broad associations are insults. 

 

6 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Also, note how these debates turn into giant insult-fests.  If that's not a sign of "politics" then I don't know what is.  

I agree with you on that. Perhaps that is part of the problem, science shouldn't be politically motivated. There again, that's why firing someone based on the findings of their research is crazy. Write a paper, discredit that person professionally by pointing out how they've manipulated the data or taken a biased approach.....but you don't fire them. Perhaps if the scientific method were followed, by participants on both sides, a reasonable debate could be had and likely a more accurate and better conclusion can be drawn. 

[remake it + 288]

 

12 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

All sides are trying to use "politics" and "bits of science" to advance their narrative.  Also, note how these debates turn into giant insult-fests.  If that's not a sign of "politics" then I don't know what is.  

It's only politics in the US if you have been paid to say it, and unless it is a tweet it can only otherwise be a narrative (aka fake news), so don't insult us unless you are going to bribe us first and we can then let you do our thinking - fair trade?.