News & Current Events
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-01-26T16:20:58-05:00 — #1
have a look at this video of a speech by nobel prize winner on the topic:
will_scholten — 2017-01-26T16:57:59-05:00 — #2
Thanks Wolfgang, I am glad you found this and put it out here!!
alex_vaughn — 2017-01-26T20:10:59-05:00 — #3
I noticed that his arguments were in some cases not scientific, but complaints that it is not permissible to talk about climate change. Also, there were at least four spelling errors in his presentation. Is it too much to ask to run it through a spellchecker?
Now clearly he's very smart and a good physicist. And, if he was talking about superconductivity, then I would take his position very seriously. However climate change and his area of expertise have little to no relation to one another.
Now, I've heard arguments that some areas would experience benefits such as rainfalls and temperatures favorable for farming, while other areas would experience the opposite. Coastal regions (e.g. Southern Florida, and Louisiana) and islands may become uninhabitable if sea levels rise too much. For historical reasons, coastal areas tend to have larger populations due to port cities. Some regions may become more habitable while others become less so. This will require large migrations however. My family could do that, but those in poverty will be hurt the most.
Now here is a video of several Nobel Laurates speaking on climate change.
Now, I don't consider this proof. If you wish to have that for yourself, then I believe you'd need to study the scientific literature intensely. This would include studying textbooks, review articles, research papers, talking with experts, and ideally conducting original research. This would require years to do properly, if not decades. Considering there are scientists who have spent their careers researching Earth's climate. I'm not prepared to do this. Thus, I will listen to those who have done this research, and their judgements expressed through scientific societies and academies.
P.S. I didn't note any of his graphs that reach even 2015. One has data only up to 2000.
gao_lu — 2017-02-07T19:36:22-05:00 — #4
alex_vaughn — 2017-02-07T22:15:57-05:00 — #5
This article clearly has some faulty information if you inspect their quotes.
Models are not exact replicas of what is happening in nature they're meant to help predict the future, and understand trends.
Bates is not the first to question Karl’s conclusions. A paper by Canadian climate modeler John Fyfe questioned the 2015 study. As he put it, in a 2016 article from the journal Nature Climate Change, “there is a mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what observations are showing. We can’t ignore it.”
I don't see why any scientist would accept findings that are published in a non-peer-reviewed blog over peer reviewed papers and scientific consensus. The Fox article even says that he doesn't have any publicly available evidence.
Bates, who could not be reached for comment, but has published some of his allegations in a blog, claims to have documentation of his explosive charges and indicated more revelations are coming. (Fox article)
gao_lu — 2017-02-07T22:19:36-05:00 — #6
Thanks for your added insights here.
bill_coley — 2017-02-08T00:28:47-05:00 — #7
The Daily Mail story on which the FoxNews story relies reads like an advocacy piece in a politicized tabloid... which makes some sense since the Daily Mail is largely a tabloid media outlet. Here's one headline from the site's "news" page:
'My intestines were out... and she was grabbing hold of them': Man tells court how his ex-wife 'tried to disembowel him with a carving knife after they had four-hour sex session'
What the Daily Mail story does NOT read like is journalism rooted in scientific literacy. For a readable, apolitical, though at times dense, review of the science underlying the issues raised by the "whistleblower" John Bates, I suggest THIS ARTICLE, my takeaway from which is that the data relied on for the conclusions of the 2015 study Bates criticizes were examined rigorously by peers and, ultimately, substantively verified by those reviewers as well as independent studies that gathered data from other sources.
Climate change deniers, now led, sadly, by the new president of the United States - who believes it's a Chinese hoax - and the chair of the House Science Committee, Lamar Smith of Texas - who once said, "I’m really more fearful of freezing. And I don’t have any science to prove that. But we have a lot of science that tells us they’re not basing it [global warming] on real scientific facts.” - face insurmountable odds in their efforts to disprove what has become established scientific consensus: that the earth is warming and that human activity is the principal culprit. Desperation leads to their reliance on anecdotal tidbits that rarely pass professional science muster - e.g. almost never are their findings peer-reviewed.
I take great hope from the uprising that happened last month at the EPA when the Trump administration pursued plans to remove climate change information from the Agency's website. Praise God! Science, and the men and women who engage in it, will not go quietly!
gao_lu — 2017-02-08T01:04:44-05:00 — #8
Bill, you bring up all kinds of unrelated tabloid stuff that interests you, but this is something entirely different, which you seem to have missed. This article was journalism documenting a present real case of corrupt science.
bill_coley — 2017-02-08T17:58:25-05:00 — #9
It's a small, curious, but no better than marginally relevant update to report that today Wikipedia announced that it now considers The Daily Mail "generally unreliable" as an information source, one that may no longer be cited as a source for Wikipedia articles except in particular circumstances. As you will find in THIS ARTICLE, Wikipedia banned The Daily Mail due to its "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication.”
Somehow it's only right that Fox News looked to The Daily Mail for its coverage of the alleged climate change scandal referenced in this thread's recent posts.