SC

Science: Only correct if it fits the popular narrative

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Intellectually, you're all hat, no cattle. 

Ward, you are dealing with an AI bot.   The bot will just keep coming back at you again and again, that is what the programming code is designed to do.  The handler is not even being sophisticated about it, just letting the bot rip.  Interesting bot, though;  I would suggest it is probably Chinese. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 hours ago, DayTrader said:

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. 

That is not entirely accurate, although the results are unintended.  Those "other countries" have internal long-distance trucking and trucking rest stops, where entrepreneurs have built brothels.  The girls there are typically infected, and the wide-ranging movement of the truckers thus spreads disease, which in turn is fatal, and is dramatically reducing population numbers.  For example, perhaps 30% of the populations of Rwanda and South Africa are now infected with HIV and developing fatal cases of AIDS.  The reduction in population numbers will do more to offset degeneration of the landscape than anything else in those countries. 

Mass infections has a storied history.  Pre-Columbian North America had a population estimated at 105 million.  When explorers such as Ponce de Leon showed up, they brought with them a cornucopia of European diseases, which led to mass deaths as there was no immunity in North America to the unknown biologics.  Also the English cynically gifted blankets infected with smallpox material to the natives along the Hudson River valley, in order to infect the natives and destroy them without military campaigns.  That worked splendidly  (think of it as "ethnic cleansing"). 

Right now the greatest threat to the planet is desertification.  That can be fought with water diverted from mighty rivers such as the Congo, via irrigation channels into the Sahel, and the planting of grasses and scrub trees.  Interestingly, none of the "climate warriors" ever talk about that.  As the desert continues to expand, the planet gets wrecked.  What you need is more CO2, not less. 

Edited by Jan van Eck
typing error
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Just so you can see how this is done. 

Here is some published research.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.2030 

Note how they makes note of what they see as shortcomings in previous methodology, point out what they think that was, how they are doing things differently, and why they feel those results are more accurate.

The abstract from that journal:

Abstract

Subpopulation growth rates and the probability of decline at current harvest levels were determined for 13 subpopulations of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) that are within or shared with Canada based on mark–recapture estimates of population numbers and vital rates, and harvest statistics using population viability analyses (PVA). Aboriginal traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) on subpopulation trend agreed with the seven stable/increasing results and one of the declining results, but disagreed with PVA status of five other declining subpopulations. The decline in the Baffin Bay subpopulation appeared to be due to over‐reporting of harvested numbers from outside Canada. The remaining four disputed subpopulations (Southern Beaufort Sea, Northern Beaufort Sea, Southern Hudson Bay, and Western Hudson Bay) were all incompletely mark–recapture (M‐R) sampled, which may have biased their survival and subpopulation estimates. Three of the four incompletely sampled subpopulations were PVA identified as nonviable (i.e., declining even with zero harvest mortality). TEK disagreement was nonrandom with respect to M‐R sampling protocols. Cluster analysis also grouped subpopulations with ambiguous demographic and harvest rate estimates separately from those with apparently reliable demographic estimates based on PVA probability of decline and unharvested subpopulation growth rate criteria. We suggest that the correspondence between TEK and scientific results can be used to improve the reliability of information on natural systems and thus improve resource management. Considering both TEK and scientific information, we suggest that the current status of Canadian polar bear subpopulations in 2013 was 12 stable/increasing and one declining (Kane Basin). We do not find support for the perspective that polar bears within or shared with Canada are currently in any sort of climate crisis. We suggest that monitoring the impacts of climate change (including sea ice decline) on polar bear subpopulations should be continued and enhanced and that adaptive management practices are warranted.

 

This is how you address something in science that you disagree with. You don't fire the people that did the research you disagree with. You research their research and write a rebuttal to it. If you can demonstrate a flaw, and better yet a more accurate solution, then you've built upon scientific understanding and everyone benefits. 

 

Another quote from that paper:

We choose to look at this information collectively rather than simply accept what others have written because we are concerned that the polarizing influence from climate politics may have generated perspectives about polar bear conservation that are more argumentative than objective.

 

This right here. @remake it This is what people do with other people's research. Just because you didnt collect the data doesn't mean you're incapable of analyzing it. 

Edited by PE Scott
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Right now the greatest threat to the planet is desertification.  That can be fought with water diverted from mighty rivers such as the Congo, via irrigation channels into the Sahel, and the planting of grasses and scrub trees.  Interestingly, none of the "climate warriors" ever talk about that.  As the desert continues to expand, the planet gets wrecked.  What you need is more CO2, not less. 

Loss of top soil is a major threat.  To fight it the land needs: water, nutrients (N,P,K), and solid organic carbon like compost - not more CO2.

CO2 is not the limiting reagent in photosynthetic systems (some enclosed, high light intensity, greenhouses use additional CO2 but it's not really needed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PE Scott said:

This right here. @remake it This is what people do with other people's research. Just because you didnt collect the data doesn't mean you're incapable of analyzing it. 

It's called peer review, but Crockford has never done field research on polar bears to bother the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours 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.

And when your buddies ‘peer review’ your shit, and you ‘peer review’ their shit, and you are all suffering from the ‘publish or perish’ malady....do you honestly think anything is actually critically reviewed?

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, remake it said:

It's called peer review, but Crockford has never done field research on polar bears to bother the process.

See my earlier comment this peer review bullshit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, remake it said:

It's called peer review, but Crockford has never done field research on polar bears to bother the process

I'm convinced you are selectively literate or intentionally obtuse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PE Scott said:

I'm convinced you are selectively literate or intentionally obtuse. 

@Jan van Eck may well be correct. It's a bot designed to sound like a pubescent 14 year old trolling from his mommy's basement. In that effort it has succeeded, mightily. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

And when your buddies ‘peer review’ your shit, and you ‘peer review’ their shit, and you are all suffering from the ‘publish or perish’ malady....do you honestly think anything is actually critically reviewed?

Maybe not so much in crap journals, but something prestigious like Nature there is absolutely a lot of review.

Publish or perish is only for low-level academics; once you have tenure you can pretty much do whatever the hell you want.

Biggest risk to credibility is funding / conflict of interests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal)

" Fewer than 8% of submitted papers are accepted for publication."

https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/editorial-criteria-and-processes

Edited by Enthalpic
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PE Scott said:

I'm convinced you are selectively literate or intentionally obtuse. 

Your opening claim was:

On 10/22/2019 at 2:49 AM, PE Scott said:

Climate alarmists rely on broken and politicised pseudo-science.

,,, and it was a about a person who claims expertise in an area where she is not only unpublished, but is regarded by the science community who are published on polar bear research as promoting a false narrative regarding what the science suggests is a likely predicament for their future viability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PE Scott said:

I'm convinced you are selectively literate or intentionally obtuse. 

Ya think ??!!

I'm confused by the 'or' by the way

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, remake it said:

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.

Why do you think it was named GREEN LAND?

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

Publish or perish is only for low-level academics; once you have tenure you can pretty much do whatever the hell you want.

Biggest risk to credibility is funding / conflict of interests.

I never researched polar bears, but I did work in a biomedical lab while I was in school. I'd say you are more or less correct here. I think there is a lot of pressure to publish work in order to retain funding that often results in rushed or incomplete analysis. I saw that often. The other thing, as you said, is the tenured professors were typically the ones getting grants to do "innovative" or new experiments. The ones with out tenure trying to get their name known often relied on grant funding to basically repeat experiments done by the tenured professors previously in order to validate the results. The rub here is that if you're provided grant money to repeat an experiment and you can't replicate the results, the pressure is on to finesse the data until it fits as opposed to risking your credibility by denying the efficacy of the experiment. This was of course in my very narrow experience and not indicative of the entire scientific community. Just my 2 cents.

I agree with @Douglas Bucklandthat there are definately instances of bias. I also agree with you, @Enthalpic, that there are some credible sources and not all academia is rubbish. Also, that securing and maintaining funding can sometimes lead to questionable behavior.....as with anything.

 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Why do you think it was named GREEN LAND?

The Queen does not live in Queensland, so if you have a comment on the thread proper, what is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could do some research of your own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland

Norse settlement[edit]

Europeans became aware of Greenland's existence, probably in the early 10th century, when Gunnbjörn Ulfsson, sailing from Norway to Iceland, was blown off course by a storm and sighted some islands off Greenland. During the 980s, explorers led by Erik the Red set out from Iceland and reached the southwest coast of Greenland, found the region uninhabited, and subsequently settled there. Erik named the island Greenland (Grœnland in Old Norse, Grænland in modern Icelandic, Grønland in modern Danish and Norwegian) - in effect as a marketing device.[citation needed] Both the Book of Icelanders (Íslendingabók, a medieval account of Icelandic history from the 12th century onward) and the Saga of Eric the Red (Eiríks saga rauða, a medieval account of his life and of the Norse settlement of Greenland) state that Erik said that it would encourage people to go there that the land had a good name."[8][failed verification (See discussion.)]

According to the sagas, the Icelanders had exiled Erik the Red for three years for committing murder,[9] c. 982. He sailed to Greenland, where he explored the coastline and claimed certain regions as his own. He then returned to Iceland to persuade people to join him in establishing a settlement on Greenland. The Icelandic sagas say that 25 ships left Iceland with Erik the Red in 985, and that only 14 of them arrived safely in Greenland.[10] This date has been approximately confirmed by radiocarbon dating of remains at the first settlement at Brattahlid (now Qassiarsuk), which yielded a date of about 1000. According to the sagas, it was also in the year 1000 that Erik's son, Leif Eirikson, left the settlement to explore the regions around Vinland, which historians generally assume to have been located in what is now Newfoundland.

The Norse established settlements along Greenland's fjords. Excavations have shown that the fjords at that time were surrounded by forests of 4- to 6-metre tall birch trees and by hills covered with grass and willow brush.[11][unreliable source?][12][unreliable source?] The Norse probably cleared the landscape by felling trees to use as building material and fuel, and by allowing their sheep and goats to graze there in both summer and winter.

The Norse settled in three separate locations in south-western Greenland: the larger Eastern Settlement, the smaller Western Settlement, and the still smaller Middle Settlement (often considered part of the Eastern one). Estimates put the combined population of the settlements at their height between 2,000 and 10,000, with more recent estimates[13] trending toward the lower figure. Archeologists have identified the ruins of approximately 620 farms: 500 in the Eastern Settlement, 95 in the Western Settlement, and 20 in the Middle.

240px-I._E._C._Rasmussen_-_Sommernat_und
 
Summer on the Greenland coast c. 1000

The economy of the Norse Greenlanders depended on a combination of pastoral farming with hunting and some fishing. Farmers kept cattle, sheep and goats - shipped into the island - for their milk, cheese and butter, while most of the consumed meat came from hunted caribou and seals. Both individual farmers and groups of farmers organised summer trips to the more northerly Disko Bay area where they hunted walruses, narwhals and polar bears for their skins, hides and ivory. Besides being used to make garments and shoes, these resources also functioned as a form of currency, as well as making up the most important export commodities.[14]

The settlements carried on a trade in ivory from walrus tusks with Europe, as well as exporting rope, sheep, seals, wool and cattle hides (according to one 13th-century account). They depended on Iceland and Norway for iron tools, wood (especially for boat building, although they may also have obtained wood from coastal Labrador - Markland), supplemental foodstuffs, and religious and social contacts. Trade ships from Iceland and Norway traveled to Greenland every year and would sometimes overwinter in Greenland. Beginning in the late-13th century, laws required all ships from Greenland to sail directly to Norway. The climate became increasingly colder in the 14th and 15th centuries, during the period of colder weather known as the Little Ice Age.

In 1126 the Roman Catholic Church founded a diocese at Garðar (now Igaliku). It was subject to the Norwegian archdiocese of Nidaros (now Trondheim); at least five churches in Norse Greenland are known from archeological remains. In 1261 the population accepted the overlordship of the King of Norway, although it continued to have its own law. In 1380 the Norwegian kingdom entered into a personal union with the Kingdom of Denmark. After initially thriving, the Norse settlements in Greenland declined in the 14th century. The Norse abandoned the Western Settlement around 1350. In 1378 there was no longer a bishop at Garðar. In 1402-1404, the Black Death hit Iceland for the first time and killed approximately half the population there - but there is no evidence that it reached Greenland.[15] The last written record of the Norse Greenlanders documents a marriage in 1408 at Hvalsey Church, whose ruins are the best-preserved of the Norse buildings of that period.

1024px-Hvalsey_Church.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

You could do some research of your own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland

Norse settlement[edit]

Europeans became aware of Greenland's existence, probably in the early 10th century, when Gunnbjörn Ulfsson, sailing from Norway to Iceland, was blown off course by a storm and sighted some islands off Greenland. During the 980s, explorers led by Erik the Red set out from Iceland and reached the southwest coast of Greenland, found the region uninhabited, and subsequently settled there. Erik named the island Greenland (Grœnland in Old Norse, Grænland in modern Icelandic, Grønland in modern Danish and Norwegian) - in effect as a marketing device.[citation needed] Both the Book of Icelanders (Íslendingabók, a medieval account of Icelandic history from the 12th century onward) and the Saga of Eric the Red (Eiríks saga rauða, a medieval account of his life and of the Norse settlement of Greenland) state that Erik said that it would encourage people to go there that the land had a good name."[8][failed verification (See discussion.)]

According to the sagas, the Icelanders had exiled Erik the Red for three years for committing murder,[9] c. 982. He sailed to Greenland, where he explored the coastline and claimed certain regions as his own. He then returned to Iceland to persuade people to join him in establishing a settlement on Greenland. The Icelandic sagas say that 25 ships left Iceland with Erik the Red in 985, and that only 14 of them arrived safely in Greenland.[10] This date has been approximately confirmed by radiocarbon dating of remains at the first settlement at Brattahlid (now Qassiarsuk), which yielded a date of about 1000. According to the sagas, it was also in the year 1000 that Erik's son, Leif Eirikson, left the settlement to explore the regions around Vinland, which historians generally assume to have been located in what is now Newfoundland.

The Norse established settlements along Greenland's fjords. Excavations have shown that the fjords at that time were surrounded by forests of 4- to 6-metre tall birch trees and by hills covered with grass and willow brush.[11][unreliable source?][12][unreliable source?] The Norse probably cleared the landscape by felling trees to use as building material and fuel, and by allowing their sheep and goats to graze there in both summer and winter.

The Norse settled in three separate locations in south-western Greenland: the larger Eastern Settlement, the smaller Western Settlement, and the still smaller Middle Settlement (often considered part of the Eastern one). Estimates put the combined population of the settlements at their height between 2,000 and 10,000, with more recent estimates[13] trending toward the lower figure. Archeologists have identified the ruins of approximately 620 farms: 500 in the Eastern Settlement, 95 in the Western Settlement, and 20 in the Middle.

240px-I._E._C._Rasmussen_-_Sommernat_und
 
Summer on the Greenland coast c. 1000

The economy of the Norse Greenlanders depended on a combination of pastoral farming with hunting and some fishing. Farmers kept cattle, sheep and goats - shipped into the island - for their milk, cheese and butter, while most of the consumed meat came from hunted caribou and seals. Both individual farmers and groups of farmers organised summer trips to the more northerly Disko Bay area where they hunted walruses, narwhals and polar bears for their skins, hides and ivory. Besides being used to make garments and shoes, these resources also functioned as a form of currency, as well as making up the most important export commodities.[14]

The settlements carried on a trade in ivory from walrus tusks with Europe, as well as exporting rope, sheep, seals, wool and cattle hides (according to one 13th-century account). They depended on Iceland and Norway for iron tools, wood (especially for boat building, although they may also have obtained wood from coastal Labrador - Markland), supplemental foodstuffs, and religious and social contacts. Trade ships from Iceland and Norway traveled to Greenland every year and would sometimes overwinter in Greenland. Beginning in the late-13th century, laws required all ships from Greenland to sail directly to Norway. The climate became increasingly colder in the 14th and 15th centuries, during the period of colder weather known as the Little Ice Age.

In 1126 the Roman Catholic Church founded a diocese at Garðar (now Igaliku). It was subject to the Norwegian archdiocese of Nidaros (now Trondheim); at least five churches in Norse Greenland are known from archeological remains. In 1261 the population accepted the overlordship of the King of Norway, although it continued to have its own law. In 1380 the Norwegian kingdom entered into a personal union with the Kingdom of Denmark. After initially thriving, the Norse settlements in Greenland declined in the 14th century. The Norse abandoned the Western Settlement around 1350. In 1378 there was no longer a bishop at Garðar. In 1402-1404, the Black Death hit Iceland for the first time and killed approximately half the population there - but there is no evidence that it reached Greenland.[15] The last written record of the Norse Greenlanders documents a marriage in 1408 at Hvalsey Church, whose ruins are the best-preserved of the Norse buildings of that period.

1024px-Hvalsey_Church.jpg

Tweedledum [sh] {remake} It will claim it's fake news

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, remake it said:

It has nothing to do with this thread, although your Breitbart link was a crock of cobblers.

It has everything to do with this thread as the firing of the Canadian professor who dared to dispute the polar bear misinformation campaign. If you can't reply constructively you should just find another site. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

If you can't reply constructively you should just find another site. 

Lol lol lol lol lol lol

That bot won't hunt. 

The twit said Greenland wasn't green then when you proved it, Dickfor claimed you weren't on topic! The same twit can't read a map, nor figure out that the study I referenced done by Norwegian scientists was in the far NORTH of Greenland, which is above the Arctic circle on a beach facing north. Rather than admit he's wrong AGAIN, he moves the goalposts and demands I prove a negative. 

But stupid is as stupid does and @remake it doesn't understand the first thing about the first thing. Why do we get the stupid bots? Surely there's a good AI bot out there that's more intelligent than this one running on a Commodore 64.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

It has everything to do with this thread as the firing of the Canadian professor who dared to dispute the polar bear misinformation campaign. If you can't reply constructively you should just find another site. 

Why not read the work from those who do the research as you clearly have not.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

The twit said Greenland wasn't green then when you proved it, Dickfor claimed you weren't on topic!

You can add that to the list on many things you just make up because it never happened, although the reason Greenland has its name is most often associated with a very opposite sense.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

then when you proved it, Dickfor claimed you weren't on topic!

this is all he does yep, if proved even vaguely wrong, which isn't hard 

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

It has everything to do with this thread

nope not if you corrected him, then it's diversion

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

will claim it's fake news

DING - now you're learning 

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Why do you think it was named GREEN LAND?

yep the clue's in the name lol 

8 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

It's a bot designed to sound like a pubescent 14 year old trolling from his mommy's basement.

DING

48 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

and @remake it doesn't understand the first thing about the first thing. Why do we get the stupid bots? Surely there's a good AI bot out there that's more intelligent than this one running on a Commodore 64.

present your case please 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, remake it said:

The Queen does not live in Queensland, so if you have a comment on the thread proper, what is it?

You really are a hopeless dolt....

  • Like 1

Share this post


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