MovieChat Forums > Tonyharrison > Replies
Tonyharrison's Replies
Thanks to you and everyone else who has replied here. I totally agree you don't tell kids their parents' advice is wrong. I guess I could try to be non-judgemental when talking to the dad. I could say alternative advice he might want to give his son is when meeting a feminist, pay attention to her attitudes and behaviour. For example, if she remains calm and rational when discussing ideas that's okay but if she expresses anger and resentment, steer clear! The same can be said about meeting anyone.
He definitely comes across as awkward, kind of like Napoleon Dynamite!
Like I said before (https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/64bdd94503162c637607a648/Climate-Change-Realistic-Solutions?reply=64d2374348b6684f48f6792e), you need to start citing some peer reviewed research. I'm not seeing that on this thread.
(but I'm happy to give Stuart Harris the benefit of doubt and assume that the peer review process was conducted properly for this article), and 5) now his article has just been published, it will be interesting to see how it will be critically evaluated in other journals over the next 12 to 24 months. Will his research establish a new theory that climate change is in fact primarily or exclusively caused by solar radiation? Or will his article join that body of literature that rejects anthropogenic climate, estimated to account for no more than three percent of climate scientists? I'm happy to revisit this thread then and see what the updates will be.
On the other hand, John Stossel's video is an absolute joke. Judith Curry hasn't published any peer reviewed research since she quit academia in the mid-2000s (https://www.desmog.com/judith-curry/). I also find it hard to believe her claim in this video that the peer reviewed journals will stonewall you if you don't accept the prevailing theory of climate change as opposed to considering your submission for its individual merits (see point 2 about Stuart Harris). It's far-fetched for her to claim that it was easier to get rich through her past career in academia when she collects $400 an hour in consultation fees from fossil fuel companies. Where John Stossel really shoots himself in the foot is how he mentions Climategate almost 14 years later when researchers were cleared of any fraudulent conduct within a matter of months (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climategate-scientist-cleared-in-inquiry-again/).
Stuart A Harris' article raises an important question that peer reviewed research has been answering for decades: What causes climate change, changes in human activity or changes in solar radiation? One may assume the majority of climate scientists agree that climate change shares a causal correlation between both, but the former is a greater cause than the latter. Indeed Tom Wigley published his findings in 1988: "The potential climatic effects of cyclic, radius-related irradiance changes are evaluated giving a range of global-mean temperature fluctuations of 0.2–0.3°C over the past 300 years. For the past 10,000 years, the recent glacial chronologies of Röthlisberger (1986) are compared with the 14C anomaly curve of Stuiver et al. (1986). The agreement between times of major 14C anomaly and times of globally-advanced glaciers (i.e. cool summers) is shown to be statistically significant. The implied reduction of solar irradiance during times of maximum century-time-scale 14C anomaly such as the Maunder Minimum is shown to be around 6 Wn-2, equivalent to a net radiative forcing change of about 1 Wm-2 at the top of the troposphere. If another major 14C anomaly began early in the 21st century, the associated solar perturbation would be of considerable importance, but still insufficient to fully offset the projected warming due to future greenhouse gas concentration increases." (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-3011-7_13)
But back to Stuart Harris' findings: 1) his article was published eight days ago (3 August 2023), 2) one would expect more than eight sources in his bold assumption, "There seems to be no connection between carbon dioxide and the temperature of the Earth", 3) he does cite evidence to support his findings such as, for example, a case study on the impact of deforestation in Costa Rica but it will be interesting to see how it stacks up against other case studies, 4) on a side note, MDPI has been accused of predatory publishing [cont]
activity and global temperatures is inaccurate, we can say that climate science is settled with regard to anthropogenic climate change. After all, that's what NASA reminds us (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/).
or disprove its existence. But even then scientists agree that the concept is conjecture. For example, astrophysicists agree that to date, the multiverse remains neither proven nor disproven.
I absolutely agree that scientists (and researchers in any field) need to revaluate research and postulate new ideas so as to improve their disciplines. But sadly when a new theory is achieved (and the science is settled), researchers find their work (and often themselves) under attack by outsiders with ulterior motives. For example, creationists accused Charles Darwin of doing the work of Satan whereas in Nazi Germany, quantum physics was declared "Jewish physics". Even in the 21st century there are unscientific claims that contradict germ theory (https://www.bu.edu/hic/2021/01/04/5g-doesnt-cause-covid-19-but-the-rumor-it-does-spread-like-a-virus/). In the same vein, the fossil fuel industry has attempted to undermine research into climate change for more than four decades (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing). While climate change denial has failed to undermine the integrity of climatology as a discipline, the same cannot be said about the safety of climatologists themselves. In response to the so-called "Climategate" farce, Prof Phil Jones was cleared of any wrongdoing but still received death threats (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-scientist-relieved-vindicated).
Given that global temperatures have been recorded since 1880 (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures#:~:text=Global%20temperature%20records%20start%20around,planet%20prior%20to%20that%20time.), climate change is not something we can say remains neither proven nor disproven (as opposed to the multiverse). Until there is some ground-breaking peer reviewed publication which works out this whole time, climatologists' methodology in finding a causality in increases in human
Firstly I applaud you for referencing NASA, a reliable authority on climate change. I've seen too many posts referencing authors, organisations and publications that have no academic credentials in the field of climatology. But it's always encouraging when I see someone posting a link that ends with .edu or .gov as either the author(s) are authorities on climate change themselves or can be assumed to be held to professional standards to ensure that they are accurately referencing reliable authorities. But regarding the two links you posted from NASA, I don't think the purpose of the studies was to rule out a causal relation between climate change and natural disasters or extreme weather events; it's a given that natural disasters and extreme weather events have always occurred but rather research tells as that their frequency and severity are worsening due to climate change (https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/november/bushfires-linked-climate-change).
Regarding your point about the concept of four humours in medicine, I think (by modern definition) it has always been a pseudoscience as there was never any reliable methodology of collecting empirical evidence about the four humours in the first place. On the other hand in the field of medicine germ theory had replaced miasma theory by the time Louis Pasteur published his findings. Rather (before Pasteur) we should call them competing hypotheses, not theories, for the reason that scientific methodology involves you and your fellow researchers doing everything you can to rule out a hypothesis through quantitative and qualitative analysis. If your hypothesis stands this test, then it becomes a theory. With the advances in microbiology in the 19th century, miasma theory was discredited and to this day, germ theory remains uncontested in field of medicine. There are some concepts which might remain conjecture (as opposed to a hypothesis to begin with) in that there is not enough evidence to either prove [cont
So you don't want to tell me where you read the earth can simply clean itself?
Right so I'm Batfleck's sock puppet now am I? (https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/64bdd94503162c637607a648/Climate-Change-Realistic-Solutions?reply=64d103ca6e00f82c64355d0a) Never mind the fact that we appear to live in different countries (note how we use different standardisations of English spelling) and different time zones. Never mind that we otherwise post on different forums. Because we both keep on pointing out that you need to start referencing reliable (i.e. peer reviewed) sources that must make me a sock puppet. If I'm a sock puppet then Batfleck has gone to a great deal of time and trouble to create me!
But back to finding peer reviewed sources, here let me show you how it's done...
1) I found this one article titled, 'Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature', here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966.
2) Now I didn't just take the title's word for it. I had to check the journal's credentials. Let's see, it's called <i>Environmental Research Letters</i>. Right, so I had to check the relevant link on their website: https://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/journals/environmental-research-letters/about-environmental-research-letters/#why-publish-in-environmental-research-letters
3) And here's what I found: "High standards: our professional in-house editors manage the peer review process, and alongside our Editorial Board ensure standards are maintained at a high level and customer service is prioritized."
Bob's your uncle!
Regarding your above post, I don't know where your read how the earth can simply clean itself. I suspect that it wasn't in a peer reviewed publication. But I'll tell you what. If you provide the link, I'll take you through the process again.
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/64bdd94503162c637607a648/Climate-Change-Realistic-Solutions?reply=64cfbae9373e8330470320be
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/64bdd94503162c637607a648/Climate-Change-Realistic-Solutions?reply=64d051676e00f82c64355895
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/64bdd94503162c637607a648/Climate-Change-Realistic-Solutions?reply=64cf97bc373e833047031fab
Thank you for answering the question for him. At least Art Robinson didn't try to hide the fact that to sign the Oregon Petition, you only needed to state you have a STEM qualification. An even more dubious petition we've seen on this thread is the "World Climate Declaration" produced by CLINTEL, an organisation with ties to the fossil fuel industry. It claimed to have been signed by 1200 climatologists when anyone was eligible to sign it, including a fisherman, sommelier, airline pilot and musician (https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.32HG6HR).
Yes it lists their names but does it list their qualifications and publications?
Can you name any and tell us what they have published?
How many of the signatories had qualifications and peer reviewed publications in climate science?What can you tell me about the video in my last post?
The Oregon Petition was not an authoritative source on climate science. Just because someone has a degree in a science-related discipline, that doesn't make them a climate scientist any more than it makes them a marine biologist or electrical engineer (unless of course, they actually have degrees in their given field). This video further points out why the Oregon Petition didn't indicate any real debate among climatologists: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0
True. I guess there are always going to be people who reject science such as UFO enthusiasts rejecting astrophysics, insisting that the CIA and Stephen Hawking lied to us about extraterrestrial contact.
I guess with climate change denial, a lot of people have a hard time accepting that the economic losses in reducing carbon emissions now could offset even greater losses of inaction later on.
David Friedman claims we can only rely on Category 1 which refers to explicit endorsement with quantification. On the other hand we're talking about abstracts here and the 11,944 studies examined were conducted for a countless number of reasons in the field of climatology. If climate change were not a theory but a hypothesis that divided climatologists, we would assume that there would be more publications expressing explicit endorsement and rejection with quantification. From John Cook's findings the majority of publications (66.4%) did not state a clear position in the first place, because that would have not been the purpose of their studies. Read the article and he clearly explains how the 97.1% of climatologists who did express a position in their abstracts had done so as per Categories 1-3.
Category 3 "implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause '...carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change'"
Therefore, the overwhelming majority of articles that expressed a position were implicitly or explicitly endorsing climate change in their abstracts regardless of whether explicit endorsement with quantification would had been the primary purpose of each study. Remember, he was examining 20 years of peer reviewed research in climatology for a countless number of purposes. He wasn't conducting a poll. And it's been 10 years since he published this article so have any of the climatologists in the publications he studied come forward and complained that their position has been misrepresented? Actually in section 3.2 he and his colleagues invited the authors they studied to offer a self assessment and of those who responded, the figure who rejected climate change was even lower (1.8%).
All David Friedman is doing is trying to do is cast doubt based publications' categories of endorsement. Were your links peer reviewed?
Agree. If somebody hasn't authored any peer reviewed publications in climatology, they should only cite other authors who have.
Of all the posts on this thread which don't accept climate change as a theory (unlike an estimated 97.1 percent of climate scientists), none of them refer to any peer reviewed research publications.
Regarding my previous reluctance to answer your question first, I am disappointed that you didn't at least try to answer my question beforehand so that you may have been able to figure out whether you were citing sources from qualified climate scientists in peer reviewed publications, or from non-experts who are no more qualified to comment as authorities on climate change than Paris Hilton. I honestly hoped you could learn something about reading and referencing reliable authors from peer-reviewed publications. Regrettably it appears from the tone your previous posts, you do not seem open to doing so.
Now firstly, I should correct the wording of my previous posts. I should not have said "97 percent of climate scientists" but should have said "an estimated 97 percent of climate scientists." You can find John Cook's peer reviewed journal article here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. The abstract clearly states, "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." He covered 11,944 abstracts from peer-reviewed publications from 1991 to 2011. I repeat that this is a peer reviewed journal article providing a mathematically reliable estimate here. Where is there evidence of John Cook distorting or omitting data?
Before I continue, I think there is a good reason why 66.4% of abstracts would express no position on anthropogenic climate change. The natural sciences are different from social sciences such as politics and economics where researches accept there is room for debate. in the natural sciences, researchers do not agree to disagree. Either you accept the established theory or you publish groundbreaking research convincing all or the overwhelming majority of fellow scientists otherwise. If you are a physicist, an evolutionary biologist or climate scientist, you either 1) accept quantum physics, evolution or climate change as the established theory respectively, or 2) you propound your own theory (which to date hasn't happened). It's a given that many climate scientists would not express a position on climate change in their abstracts as to call themselves climate scientists, readers would assume that they accept the established theory.
I don't know who this David Friedman is as there is no information about him, his qualifications or publications on his blog, but all he is trying to do is cast doubt from John Cook's findings that 66.4 percent didn't express a position on climate change in their article abstracts. Furthermore, why hasn't he provided his own estimate about the scientific consensus on climate change? Moreover, why is he uploading his claims on BlogSpot instead of submitting articles to peer reviewed journals? See my above paragraph as to why it is highly unlikely that the real figure is as low as 1.6 percent. It is also important to remember that while estimates are not counts, they can corroborate each other through approximate findings. Let's look at some other recent peer reviewed publications which found that consensus among climate scientists is 98.7 percent (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774), more than 99 percent (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966) and 100 percent (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266)
Further to my first paragraph, climate change denial is void of academic merit. Imagine if an historian researched diaries that had been kept by German Jews in the 1930s and stated in an abstract of an article, "We find that 66.4% of diaries did not comment on the Nazi regime, 32.6% expressed fear and/or aversion, 0.7% expressed feeling safe and/or positive about the regime and 0.3% expressed feeling uncertain about the regime. Among diaries expressing an opinion on the Nazi regime, 97.1% expressed fear and/or aversion." One can only imagine that David Irving would try to cast doubt on whether Jews felt unsafe in Nazi Germany based upon that 66.4 percent. Climate change denial is to climate science what Holocaust denial is to history.
Nonetheless if you can provide peer reviewed research, please do so.