Science: Only correct if it fits the popular narrative

[Guest]

And you do not reside in Droidville.

There are always exceptions. 

#hopeless

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, remake it said:

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

Here is the research I have done Global Warming AKA Climate Change https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vHU2hHXebxpvExT7srNNnX-VM7Qn9Ak_ZmdKCIcUti8/edit

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Maybe Red is back with a new name. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours 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. 

Note that she was arguing that polar bears are doing fine despite the loss of sea ice - not that climate change isn't happening.

The bears may be doing better for other reasons, like harvest reduction / hunting restrictions, relocation of problem bears instead of termination.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Note that she was arguing that polar bears are doing fine despite the loss of sea ice - not that climate change isn't happening.

The bears may be doing better for other reasons, like harvest reduction / hunting restrictions, relocation of problem bears instead of termination.

When a net larger amount of ice melts than is formed over time ocean levels will rise. The polar bears can adapt to whatever level occurs. Losing habitat to mankind might be a problem someday. The alarmism lies are the big problem in my book. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

8 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

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

ANd that 8% should be 100% and let others send in rebuttles tearing it apart and publish those as well.  That my friend is how science is SUPPOSED to happen.  Not have to bribe the guards so you can enter their "hallowed halls"

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

ANd that 8% should be 100% and let others send in rebuttles tearing it apart and publish those as well.  That my friend is how science is SUPPOSED to happen.  Not have to bribe the guards so you can enter their "hallowed halls"

Recommended reading Peer review in need of change

Bottom line, as the Climategate emails clearly proved, the "gate" keepers on "the team" make CERTAIN that no dissenting voices enter their "hallowed halls". You are right, science was never meant to be constrained by "publications" who effectively steal the works that those who publish there lose their rights to. It might surprise those reading this that once the author gets published in "a journal", they've signed away copyright to THEIR piece to that journal.  I know scientists who have had to pay Elsevier to get THEIR OWN PAPER! 

Researchgate is the place I recommend to everyone. Upload your research there, no "gatekeepers" and let the world decide. Exactly as you recommend. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

7 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....

[PE Scott + 563]

5 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Note that she was arguing that polar bears are doing fine despite the loss of sea ice - not that climate change isn't happening.

The bears may be doing better for other reasons, like harvest reduction / hunting restrictions, relocation of problem bears instead of termination.

Exactly this. This is why I found this even more odd. She never said that reductions in ice weren't evident or that climate changes weren't occurring. Instead, she said that collective census data indicated that populations of polar bears were thriving in the majority of locations studied. This alone, being in direct contradiction to previous publicity stunts showing polar bears starving because AGW is wrecking their enviroment, was enough to get her fired.

Honestly, I sometimes find myself on the fence a bit with respect to anthropogenic global warming. I agree that the last 150 years of data seems to point to a trend of warming though. However, its stuff like this that makes me doubt the AGW narrative even more. To often correlation is represented as causation when often things are far more complex than the set of parameters being compared. When that data is questioned, the person who questions it is attacked. It just throws a wrench in the whole narrative and makes the argument feel more political than scientific. Soon, it's difficult not to be skeptical of anything your told from anyone entrenched far to either side of an argument as they lose the ability to be objective.

 I can tell you're at least willing to consider other evidence when its presented to you @Enthalpic, which I respect. I try to be open minded and willing to accept alternative viewpoints provided there is enough supporting evidence.

Edited October 28, 2019 by PE Scott

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, PE Scott said:

This is why I found this even more odd. She never said that reductions in ice weren't evident or that climate changes weren't occurring. Instead, she said that collective census data indicated that populations of polar bears were thriving in the majority of locations studied. This alone, being in direct contradiction to previous publicity stunts showing polar bears starving because AGW is wrecking their enviroment, was enough to get her fired.

There is no such thing as census data for polar bears as the many subpopulations are too widely scattered, so what real scientists who have spent decades specifically addressing polar bear issues object to is Crockford's claim to be an expert while refusing to appreciate that sea ice declines must over time lead to polar bear declines.

Edited October 28, 2019 by remake it
removed some commas

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 10/26/2019 at 10:41 PM, Ward Smith said:

Intellectually, you're all hat, no cattle. 

absolute Gold!😂

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

8 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Losing habitat to mankind might be a problem someday.

Spot on Ron!

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

There is no such thing as census data for polar bears as the many subpopulations are too widely scattered, so what real scientists who have spent decades specifically addressing polar bear issues object to is Crockford's claim to be an expert while refusing to appreciate that sea ice declines must over time lead to polar bear declines.

So, these scientists do not have an issue with Crockford’s conclusions, drawn from studying other people’s work, they have an issue with Crockford claiming to be an expert. It sounds like ego’s are involved.

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

So, these scientists do not have an issue with Crockford’s conclusions, drawn from studying other people’s work, they have an issue with Crockford claiming to be an expert. It sounds like ego’s are involved.

Your comprehension is very poor for that conclusion to be reached, so perhaps read what this is about before shooting yourself in the foot at every opportunity.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

10 minutes ago, remake it said:

Your comprehension is very poor for that conclusion to be reached, so perhaps read what this is about before shooting yourself in the foot at every opportunity.

Hopeless!

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

Your comprehension is very poor for that conclusion to be reached, so perhaps read what this is about before shooting yourself in the foot at every opportunity.

Sorry mate, that is EXACTLY what you insinuated. Perhaps you should try writing in your native tongue to avoid this issue in the future.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

Hopeless!

If 'remake it' every had an original thought, I would be gobsmacked!

[Guest]

I wouldn't, I couldn't disagree more.

He has nothing but original thoughts. They're so original they're not shared by anyone on the planet.

#reboot

[PE Scott + 563]

7 hours ago, remake it said:

There is no such thing as census data for polar bears as the many subpopulations are too widely scattered, so what real scientists who have spent decades specifically addressing polar bear issues object to is Crockford's claim to be an expert while refusing to appreciate that sea ice declines must over time lead to polar bear declines.

cen·sus

/ˈsensəs/

Learn to pronounce

noun

noun: census; plural noun: censuses

1. an official count or survey of a population, typically recording various details of individuals.

    

    

   So if no one is collecting data on populations in these areas, everyone is just stabbing in the dark with their population estimates?

    

   I can post links too.

   https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/truth-about-polar-bears

    

    

   "Consider Mitch Taylor’s story. He spent more than two decades as a polar bear researcher and manager for the Nunavut government and has published around 50 peer-reviewed papers. That should garner widespread respect. But Taylor has been highly vocal about his belief that polar bears are mostly doing fine, that cub mortality varies from year to year and that the much ballyhooed predictions of extinction by 2050 are “a joke.” He also alleges that a lot of the “exaggerated decline” is just a way to keep certain scientists well funded and to transfer control of the polar bear issue from territorial to federal hands. In response, Taylor’s critics disinvited him from meetings of polar bear specialists that he’d been attending since 1978. They also like to point out that he’s a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration, which questions the very existence of climate change. But amidst all the heated charges and countercharges, it’s hard to argue the fact that few people know polar bears the way Taylor does. And while it might be inconvenient for current political posturing, there’s no denying that certain subpopulations of polar bears are managing to survive, even thrive."

    

Edited October 28, 2019 by PE Scott

[ronwagn + 6,290]

10 hours ago, PE Scott said:

Exactly this. This is why I found this even more odd. She never said that reductions in ice weren't evident or that climate changes weren't occurring. Instead, she said that collective census data indicated that populations of polar bears were thriving in the majority of locations studied. This alone, being in direct contradiction to previous publicity stunts showing polar bears starving because AGW is wrecking their enviroment, was enough to get her fired.

Honestly, I sometimes find myself on the fence a bit with respect to anthropogenic global warming. I agree that the last 150 years of data seems to point to a trend of warming though. However, its stuff like this that makes me doubt the AGW narrative even more. To often correlation is represented as causation when often things are far more complex than the set of parameters being compared. When that data is questioned, the person who questions it is attacked. It just throws a wrench in the whole narrative and makes the argument feel more political than scientific. Soon, it's difficult not to be skeptical of anything your told from anyone entrenched far to either side of an argument as they lose the ability to be objective.

 I can tell you're at least willing to consider other evidence when its presented to you @Enthalpic, which I respect. I try to be open minded and willing to accept alternative viewpoints provided there is enough supporting evidence.

I find it nearly impossible to refute that ocean level is the only true measure of global warming. It is rising, but so slowly that people are still buying ocean front property as a first choice. If the ocean level actually starts a trend to fast rising it will not be the first time and people will adapt. To realize that Ocean levels were once much higher one only needs to look at palisades or cliffs relationship to current ocean levels. That was during prehistoric times when much of California and Florida were below sea level. Considering that timeline it is also impossible to blame ocean level rise on mankind's feeble input. 

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, PE Scott said:

cen·sus

/ˈsensəs/

Learn to pronounce

noun

noun: census; plural noun: censuses

1. an official count or survey of a population, typically recording various details of individuals.

    

    

   So if no one is collecting data on populations in these areas, everyone is just stabbing in the dark with their population estimates?

    

   I can post links too.

   https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/truth-about-polar-bears

    

    

So if there was this census  what are the numbers for each subpopulation?

[remake it + 288]

5 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Sorry mate, that is EXACTLY what you insinuated. Perhaps you should try writing in your native tongue to avoid this issue in the future.

 

9 hours ago, remake it said:

... what real scientists who have spent decades specifically addressing polar bear issues object to is Crockford's claim to be an expert while refusing to appreciate that sea ice declines must over time lead to polar bear declines.

No such insinuation as the comment is crystal clear and contrary to what you suggested.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

12 minutes ago, remake it said:

So if there was this census  what are the numbers for each subpopulation?

Of course nobody knows the exact numbers but they (biologists) certainly do field work every year and many are tagged and/or recaptured.

Using recapture rates, genetics, number of cubs, etc. you can get very good estimates of population size and reproduction rates.

A main measure is if they are generally skinnier in the spring than historical norms - due to loss of sea ice where they normally hunt.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, PE Scott said:

 And while it might be inconvenient for current political posturing, there’s no denying that certain subpopulations of polar bears are managing to survive, even thrive."

 

In my time with government I attended a lot of science meetings that were not available to the public  At one meeting the polar bear guys gave a presentation to the deputy minister of the environment.

The minister was rather abrasive at the end and straight out asked "just give me a straight answer - are the polar bears going to go extinct?"

The presenting biologist paused as long as he could, swallowed hard, and said "probably certain sub populations, but no, we don't foresee them going extinct entirely." You could tell it bothered him telling the minister that we (Canada) could "get away" with doing F all for the bears.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

54 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I find it nearly impossible to refute that ocean level is the only true measure of global warming. It is rising, but so slowly that people are still buying ocean front property as a first choice. If the ocean level actually starts a trend to fast rising it will not be the first time and people will adapt. To realize that Ocean levels were once much higher one only needs to look at palisades or cliffs relationship to current ocean levels. That was during prehistoric times when much of California and Florida were below sea level. Considering that timeline it is also impossible to blame ocean level rise on mankind's feeble input. 

Old people with a lot of money who want to live next to the pretty ocean.  They will be long dead before any of this becomes a real problem.

Geological time is very slow, but current changes appear to be happening much faster (but yes, still slow compared to a human lifespan).