SC

Science: Only correct if it fits the popular narrative

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Note: Just because it is published, does not mean it isn’t horseshit!

The ‘publish or perish’ mentality prevalent in academia ensures that horseshit gets published.

The "alternative media" posted around here publishes plenty. 

At least academia has some peer review - and not all scientists are friends - so sometimes you can find harsh rebuttals.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Or she can point to the census numbers they themselves produced and compare them to their own prior predictions and underscore the embarrassing dissimilitude to reality. 

Maybe you can point out where that is the case from the scientific literature that is published, because what scientists with real expertise in polar bears point out is that as Arctic ice extents decline it is likely that polar bear numbers will also decline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, remake it said:

as Arctic ice extents decline it is likely that polar bear numbers will also decline.

Logical, plausible and wrong. It turns out polar bears just "sort it out" as @DayTrader would put it. Whereas they used to hang out by the shoreline to eat those tasty seals, now they go further inland and eat whatever they like, alpha predators that they are. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

The "alternative media" posted around here publishes plenty. 

At least academia has some peer review - and not all scientists are friends - so sometimes you can find harsh rebuttals.

Sometimes harshness is necessary

Physics has gone off the rails

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Ward Smith said:

Logical, plausible and wrong. It turns out polar bears just "sort it out" as @DayTrader would put it. Whereas they used to hang out by the shoreline to eat those tasty seals, now they go further inland and eat whatever they like, alpha predators that they are. 

So your non expert opinion trumps the published research, and you are happy to accept the misinformation of Crockford who is exceptionally well known in the science community researching polar bears

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, remake it said:

So your non expert opinion trumps the published research, and you are happy to accept the misinformation of Crockford who is exceptionally well known in the science community researching polar bears

Really arguing with you is like shooting fish in a barrel. 

ANY of the geologists on this site (and there are plenty) can confirm for you that the Arctic was ice free 7000 years ago, so naturally polar bears are already extinct no? Because stupid

Sucks to be you

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Ward Smith said:

Really arguing with you is like shooting fish in a barrel. 

ANY of the geologists on this site (and there are plenty) can confirm for you that the Arctic was ice free 7000 years ago, so naturally polar bears are already extinct no? Because stupid

Sucks to be you

If that's what geologists at this site think, then it does explain a lot about this site.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, remake it said:

If that's what geologists at this site think, then it does explain a lot about this site.

What's your area of expertise again? Mental masturbation doesn't count

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, remake it said:

If that's what geologists at this site think, then it does explain a lot about this site.

Quote

Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free.

”The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU).

Shore features

Together with her NGU colleague, Eiliv Larsen, she has worked on the north coast of Greenland with a group of scientists from the University of Copenhagen, mapping sea-level changes and studying a number of shore features. She has also collected samples of driftwood that originated from Siberia or Alaska and had these dated, and has collected shells and microfossils from shore sediments.

”The architecture of a sandy shore depends partly on whether wave activity or pack ice has influenced its formation. Beach ridges, which are generally distinct, very long, broad features running parallel to the shoreline, form when there is wave activity and occasional storms. This requires periodically open water,” Astrid Lyså explains.

Pack-ice ridges which form when drift ice is pressed onto the seashore piling up shore sediments that lie in its path, have a completely different character. They are generally shorter, narrower and more irregular in shape.

Open sea

”The beach ridges which we have had dated to about 6000-7000 years ago were shaped by wave activity,” says Astrid Lyså. They are located at the mouth of Independence Fjord in North Greenland, on an open, flat plain facing directly onto the Arctic Ocean. Today, drift ice forms a continuous cover from the land here.

Astrid Lyså says that such old beach formations require that the sea all the way to the North Pole was periodically ice free for a long time.

Scientists, buckwheat, performing real science. Reality is something you really can't Grok isn't it? 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Scientists, buckwheat, performing real science. Reality is something you really can't Grok isn't it? 

You meant that there was a reduction of summer ice extent as there has been no ice free Arctic for a very long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, remake it said:

You meant that there was a reduction of summer ice extent as there has been no ice free Arctic for a very long time.

Yup another bald claim backed by nothing but a "proxy".

Aren't "climate scientists" still licking their wounds since the Michael Mann bristle cone pine proxy fiasco? 

Guess not

Quote

To come to this conclusion, the researchers used a proxy for the presence of sea ice—a “mono-unsaturated highly branched isoprenoid lipid” that’s produced by single-celled sea plants and deposited in ancient sediment at the bottom of the ocean. The sediment core sample they obtained spans more than 4 million years—a complete chronicle of the entire ancient ice-free period. The samples were taken from the Fram Strait, off the east coast of Greenland.

This would be farce except for the tens of billions squandered every year on this nonsense. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Yup another bald claim backed by nothing but a "proxy".

These are the words from the scientist you relied on for your claim, " We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU).

Edited by remake it
removed extra "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Can I be so bold as to ask what the tree huggers here are actually positively doing towards the environment, rather than seeming to talk ''horse shit'', to quote Gerry?

I guarantee every one of you uses as much oil and pollutes in your daily lives as all of us, I promise you you do more damage than me. The only difference is you harp on about this stuff and yet feel you are making a difference in some sense, or that you are in any way greener whatsoever? Can you please explain what makes you so morally superior that not only do you spread said horseshit, but you think you are apparently not a dumb hypocrite? I would love to hear what you do or have done to make a difference to the planet or its future. Going on Greta marches in continents you're comfortable in does not count (while avoiding the biggest culprits on the planet). And it also doesn't count when you get a McDonalds for lunch and you went to the march in your car. 

Do you think just disagreeing with scientists here is making a difference? Or that just saying everyone is wrong and we are all doomed does? Seriously, please give me, in detail, your incredible plan to save the world as it is apparently so doomed. Give me that plan, from your oil-based laptop or phone, which you're currently staring at, while telling others how bad they are and how they must change and do more. Then maybe you will get in your car. Then maybe have some meat for dinner. Then use plastics and oil derivatives all day everyday. The word hypocrite doesn't even come close. Moronic hypocrite perhaps is more fitting. 

I'd also quite like to know why entire continents to you do not need to be mentioned, in terms of what they are doing, or more accurately, not doing. Maybe you should look up the populations of Asia, Africa and South America in total. Please explain why it is only Europe, North America and Australasia that need to do more and why protests only happen here, while other countries do literally nothing positive for the environment. 

You are like the global version of the Remoaners here in England. Fearmongering your crap based on guesswork and nonsense, and dismissing constant facts presented to you, while you yourselves do not ever have to provide your workings or any evidence whatsoever it seems? I am so bored of having to wade through your dismissing shite while presenting nothing of value yourselves. Not just about this, but about anything from what I can make out. 

Get a life. Seriously. The people that believe you are primarily teenagers. Even you can do that math. You are no greener than any of us, so I find it even worse that it's the tree huggers that talk of their apparent love of nature. Maybe it makes you feel better to talk about 'climate change', to feel like you care about it to yourself, to get on some moral high horse, but if you did care you would do more than just talk about it. Instead you live exactly as we do or worse. Anyway, I await your groundbreaking global plans and to hear of your apparent green, holier than thou, non hypocritical lifestyle (told from a laptop).

I'm guessing that this will not be replied to, like the post of the 500 most polluted cities, around 150 of which were in China, and none were in the UK or the USA. Maybe focus on that stuff and your own air quality, seeing as everyone's in a mask there, then maybe you can give the big one about 'climate' or anything even vaguely environmental. As for science, forget it. Don't give up the day job. 

Cheers.

Edited by DayTrader
  • Great Response! 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, remake it said:

These are the words from the scientist you relied on for your claim, " We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU).

"Don't know" if it was 100% ice free. However it is OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE NOT A COMPLETE MORON, that it means there was substantially LESS ICE THAN AT PRESENT. Now I understand with that one billionth of one watt brain of yours that you Desperately need to grasp any little straw you can find, but and I realize this is a lot for your tiny mind to comprehend, the topic under discussion was POLAR BEARS and their supposed extinction because there's A LITTLE BIT LESS ICE AT PRESENT. Therefore, since there was virtually NO ICE TO SPEAK OF 6-7000 years ago, and IF the so called experts are correct that polar bears can't survive without the ice, QED the polar bears should ALREADY be extinct, just like the dodo bird and whatever brain cells you haven't destroyed with whatever it is you're drinking and smoking, because your kind of intelligence is hard to come by naturally. Intellectually, you're all hat, no cattle. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

ANY of the geologists on this site (and there are plenty) can confirm for you that the Arctic was ice free 7000 years ago, so naturally polar bears are already extinct no? Because stupid

3 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

However it is OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE NOT A COMPLETE MORON, that it means there was substantially LESS ICE THAN AT PRESENT.

 

So they cannot confirm what you said, and now you are making new claims that are not made by scientist who have expertise about polar bears.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, remake it said:

So they cannot confirm what you said, and now you are making new claims that are not made by scientist who have expertise about polar bears.

Not only can they not confirm what I said, but even the moronic study you quoted cannot confirm that there was no ice whatsoever in the Arctic, because, proving a negative…

Meanwhile, you're just getting crushed in this battle of wits, sure you want to continue? Isn't there a kiddie site you can haunt instead, where you can match wits with your intellectual equals? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just an insult to the kids

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Not only can they not confirm what I said, but even the moronic study you quoted cannot confirm that there was no ice whatsoever in the Arctic, because, proving a negative…

Meanwhile, you're just getting crushed in this battle of wits, sure you want to continue? Isn't there a kiddie site you can haunt instead, where you can match wits with your intellectual equals? 

What you claimed was simply untrue and now you want to claim that it was about proving a negative, which is again patently false, so at what point will you start to be honest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

image.png.4893acfff4b203a5fc045ee45b675dc5.png

Bore me some more. 

Pop to China, tell me if you can see a horizon, then get back to me.

Edited by DayTrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, remake it said:

What you claimed was simply untrue and now you want to claim that it was about proving a negative, which is again patently false, so at what point will you start to be honest?

What was untrue? Saying the Arctic was ice free? How about ice limited? How about CLEARLY LESS ICE THAN THERE IS TODAY! Are you going to sit there in mommy's basement and pretend that statement is untrue? Arctic ice extent was PROVABLY lower than today and polar bears clearly didn't die off. I get that you're too obtuse to connect more than one dot. Kiddie section for you buckwheat. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

image.png.d8549dfc996718a18616b2af7247d4c6.png

Edited by DayTrader
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

What was untrue? Saying the Arctic was ice free? How about ice limited? How about CLEARLY LESS ICE THAN THERE IS TODAY! Are you going to sit there in mommy's basement and pretend that statement is untrue? Arctic ice extent was PROVABLY lower than today and polar bears clearly didn't die off. I get that you're too obtuse to connect more than one dot. Kiddie section for you buckwheat. 

There is no record of a warm period in Greenland around 6000 years ago so it is not possible for you to prove there was less ice there than in the present era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

I'm hoping the above is your reply to my huge post about what YOU do and how green YOU are.

Why do I have the feeling it's not and it's pure drivel and diversion though? 

Call it intuition. 

image.png.e51159d2130f3b743cda77d0a6d72cc5.png

#buckwheat

Edited by DayTrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

"Don't know" if it was 100% ice free. However it is OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE NOT A COMPLETE MORON, that it means there was substantially LESS ICE THAN AT PRESENT. Now I understand with that one billionth of one watt brain of yours that you Desperately need to grasp any little straw you can find, but and I realize this is a lot for your tiny mind to comprehend, the topic under discussion was POLAR BEARS and their supposed extinction because there's A LITTLE BIT LESS ICE AT PRESENT. Therefore, since there was virtually NO ICE TO SPEAK OF 6-7000 years ago, and IF the so called experts are correct that polar bears can't survive without the ice, QED the polar bears should ALREADY be extinct, just like the dodo bird and whatever brain cells you haven't destroyed with whatever it is you're drinking and smoking, because your kind of intelligence is hard to come by naturally. Intellectually, you're all hat, no cattle. 

There is evidence that the grizzly bear and polar bear interbreed-  so the "large white bear genes" persist in grizzly populations during warm periods and those traits re-emerge during cold periods when there is a survival benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/25/2019 at 2:55 AM, DayTrader said:

LOL you're obsessed with Trump. Seriously. 

Whatever the thread is about, Trump will come up. 

And here's the kicker: he has never even met the man!  What do they call that when you are obsessed like that?  "Stalker?" 

I freely admit that I have been obsessed with some women, but at least I had "met" them!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.