President Trump Was Right on Dorian Threat to Alabama

Discussion in 'MKJ Off-Topic' started by Linebacker II, Sep 6, 2019.

  1. TheRealAirbns

    TheRealAirbns Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,425
    Likes Received:
    9,307
    Sep 11, 2019
    #61
    Top of page.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
  2. TheRealAirbns

    TheRealAirbns Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,425
    Likes Received:
    9,307
    Sep 11, 2019
    #62
    It's about the same standard we find in the "science" community. The problem you're having is that you actually trust a corrupted system of peer review and publishing in the US climate science community. You shouldn't, and neither should anyone else.

    How do we know it's corrupted? Because the emails in the Climategate data dump of 2009 revealed discussions among senior members of the climate research community planning to corrupt it. Because even then, there was strong evidence that the publishing community had been at least partially corrupted for a good ten years. And because scientists who don't toe the climate hysteria line, today, can't get their papers published without going to journals outside the US.

    Let's be perfectly clear: what's going on in the climate research community is not science. It's political propaganda. Little more.

    And please, stop making like you're actually familiar with and knowledgeable of the scientific literature in this field. The donning of a false mantle of authority is an argumentative technique I particularly dislike, and even more so, given the frequency with which you use it.

    Sure. Last October, in response to a statement from me that Climate is a complex system and that's why climate models have been consistently wrong, you claimed that climate models have been accurate for fifty years. You linked to a 1966 paper, which is nine years before that 1975 National Academy of Sciences report you just quoted, admitting that "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course." Your post from last October:

    https://wearesc.com/forum/index.php?threads/climate-change-catastrophe.55210/page-4#post-789003

    The only climate model, out of dozens, that has achieved some measure of accuracy, even today, is one constructed by the Russians. Maybe their climate research community hasn't been as corrupted as ours.

    Did you? You wrote a dissertation, but never got a PhD? (you said several years ago you didn't have a PhD)

    I'm nothing, if not reasonable.

    ( ;-) )
     
    CrownoftheValley and Troyhorn1 like this.
  3. Troyhorn1

    Troyhorn1 Points Member


    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2019
    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    622
    Sep 11, 2019
    #63
    ironically, those very stretch jeans are made with fabric based on fossil fuel, what is a tide wench supposed to do?...:)
     
    DJ4SC and SCBIGTIME like this.
  4. 901 Club

    901 Club Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,753
    Likes Received:
    11,579
    Sep 11, 2019
    #64

    [​IMG]
     
    DJ4SC, SCBIGTIME and Troyhorn1 like this.
  5. TheRealAirbns

    TheRealAirbns Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,425
    Likes Received:
    9,307
    Sep 11, 2019
    #65
    "Tide wench?"
     
  6. Troyhorn1

    Troyhorn1 Points Member


    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2019
    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    622
    Sep 11, 2019
    #66
    historical nickname for a pirate wench...
     
    TheRealAirbns, DJ4SC and SCBIGTIME like this.
  7. 901 Club

    901 Club Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,753
    Likes Received:
    11,579
    Sep 11, 2019
    #67
    A now retired "herd" of 'em --

    [​IMG]

    Not sure of the right term for a collective of wenches.

    From A to Z, it's a shrewdness of apes and a zeal of zebras, but not sure of these.
     
    DJ4SC, SCBIGTIME and Troyhorn1 like this.
  8. GaryB

    GaryB Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    3,583
    Likes Received:
    509
    Sep 11, 2019
    #68
    So in 2009 a hacker steals and disseminates emails out of context to create a controversy labeled ClimateGate. In 2011, additional emails which were part of the original theft surfaced again and ClimateGate II was announced. And, if that wasn't bad enough, in between the two email releases, the UN discovered that a Climate Change working Group had predicted the melting of the Himalayan glaciers by 2013 (See: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake).

    Fast forward to 2019 and you are using these events to prove that the science is flawed, even when proper procedures and peer reviews occur. The only problem with your theory is eight investigations were conducted and no wrong doing was found. None of the scientist's published work was recalled, and no grants were cancelled. But, the Heartland Institute was found to be connected to the 2011 email distribution and discredited.

    Yes, the paper that I copied a link to is the most cited research paper by Climatologists. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-the-most-cited-climate-change-papers

    Total rubbish! Patrick Michaels has long been discredited as nothing more that an energy company hack. Here is the Russian paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S000143381004002X Is Michaels the source of all of your misinformation?

    That's correct.
     
  9. IETrojanFan

    IETrojanFan Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    584
    Likes Received:
    493
    Sep 11, 2019
    #69
    So, you are saying that Time magazine is outside the mainstream...
     
  10. TheRealAirbns

    TheRealAirbns Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,425
    Likes Received:
    9,307
    Sep 12, 2019
    #70
    The nonsensical "out of context" defense.

    The point is that the 2009 dump showed, among other things, that these guys were working to get "their guys" into peer review boards in order to stack the deck. The result, as I've said, is that scientists who don't toe the line on climate hysteria often can't get published in the US. Here's a recent example:

    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/joseph-valle/2019/08/01/noaa-scientist-turns-climate-skeptic-recounts-censorship

    There are multiple examples showing the problem this manipulation of the scientific process created, not the least of which is allowing Michael Mann, in collusion with Phil Jones, to fail to make his "hockey stick" data available, in violation of journal requirements, and then allowing that condition to continue for six plus years without the retraction of that paper, also in violation of journal requirements. Dozens of subsequent scientific papers referenced and relied upon that paper over the next years, creating a body of "scientific" work of questionable validity.

    That's not science. Science doesn't hide data, and it doesn't manipulate the peer review processes.

    Neither is Phil Jones' statement in his email that he would destroy the Climate Research Unit's data before allowing Steve McIntyre, a major critic, to have them, and then, during the climate gate brouihaha, announcing that the Unit's data had been accidentally lost. Oops.

    Nor is Phil Jones telling others to delete their emails to cover their tracks. Nor is plotting to discredit their opponents. Nor is plotting to eliminate the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. All of those are the antithesis of the scientific process.

    As I've pointed out several times, now, and contrary to your claims, proper procedures and proper peer review were not and are not taking place. The system has been gamed.

    I read a good portion of that 2009 data dump, myself, and the emails are unambiguous and damning. So much so, it's impossible to look at the subsequent investigations as anything but a series of whitewashes.

    That statement ignores the point, which is that climate models have been and continue to be remarkably wrong. But hey, thanks for changing the subject.

    Just stop. Yes Michaels is the source of that Russia model statement. But this habit of yours of claiming everyone who disagrees with your position is a corrupt hack and everyone who agrees with you is pure and selfless is feeble-minded garbage. Taking funding from government sources and climate change advocacy groups is no less corrupting than taking it from corporations and climate change skepticism groups. Michaels is a legitimate climatologist - an actual published scientist in the climate field.

    For everyone else, here's a repeat posting of part of his appearance on Mark Levin's show, including his comment on modeling. Worth a watch, if you haven't seen it, before:

     
    901 Club likes this.
  11. Linebacker II

    Linebacker II Points Member


    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2017
    Messages:
    1,395
    Likes Received:
    912
    Sep 12, 2019
    #71
    The "climate change" hoax is a means of bringing about the liberal/leftist agenda. Gary, Bucky, DeuceX, Ennie and Bartner know this, and they don't give a damn about the climate.
     
    TheRealAirbns and Troyhorn1 like this.
  12. SoCal93

    SoCal93 Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    3,346
    Likes Received:
    3,126
    Sep 12, 2019
    #72
    Plus the climate change agenda is all about the Benjamins. There is too much money to be made. Al Gore isn't worth $150M because he's worried about polar bears.
     
    DJ4SC, Troyhorn1 and TheRealAirbns like this.
  13. TheRealAirbns

    TheRealAirbns Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,425
    Likes Received:
    9,307
    Sep 12, 2019
    #74
    (laughing) Another face plant. Just stop trying, xx.

    Some perspective (bold is in the original):

    "After examining the reports, and removing double counting, calculations show that from Fiscal Year 1993 to FY 2014 total U.S. expenditures on climate change amount to more than $166 billion in 2012 dollars."

    https://www.climatedollars.org/full-study/us-govt-funding-of-climate-change/

    As a reminder, this is from Eisenhower's famous farewell speech, in which he also warned against the military industrial complex:

    "Partly because of the huge cost involved a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiously. The prospect of domination of the nations’ scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever-present and is gravely to be regarded."
    What does a Democrat have to gain? Ask Al Gore, who made $150 million his first ten years out of office, doing little more that preaching the climate hysteria gospel. There's a reason he's invested in a carbon trading exchange and is working like a busy little beaver trying to make carbon trading a requirement of all the world's governments.
     
    CrownoftheValley and Troyhorn1 like this.
  14. SoCal93

    SoCal93 Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    3,346
    Likes Received:
    3,126
    Sep 12, 2019
    #75
    And that my friends is an inconvenient truth. Lol.
     
    Troyhorn1 and TheRealAirbns like this.
  15. GaryB

    GaryB Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    3,583
    Likes Received:
    509
    Sep 12, 2019
    #76
    Real - If the statistics about support for climate change are accurate, it would be pretty difficult to find a peer review group that isn't "their guy". I would dismiss your concern because it shouldn't matter.

    Let's try to agree on something here. I believe that the Climatologists investigating climate change have to share the same raw data. If you are trending a minimum of 30 years of data, there can only be so many sources of the data. And, any first year math student will tell you that by testing the null hypothesis, the researcher can determine if the data is relevant. So, the Climatologist has to find raw data and it has to be relevant, but "different". In other words, the research has to contribute to the study, it can't simply affirm work that has already been accepted.

    The "difference" is collinearity. In any trend model, the researcher is going to remove multiple data sources that trend the same way. And, the researcher will always retain the data source that is "best fit" for proving his hypothesis; yet different than the data his peer used in another study. Now, we get to the reason for the peer review, which is the point that you are trying to make.

    You are arguing that the researchers are manipulating the data to support their hypothesis, not test their hypothesis. And, the peer review board is colluding with the researcher because there are vast amounts of money involved.

    I am going to agree with you. I can't argue that the Heartland Institute is engaged in fraudulent research; but everyone supporting climate change research is on the up and up. But, I'm going to disagree that the ClimateGate event proved anything other than Scientists are the same as you and I on a message board. We use words that come back to haunt us, and taken out of context those words are damaging.

    Final point, the peer review boards are pricks. The goal of all researchers is to get their pet projects funded and gain a place in history. The last thing that you want as a member of a peer review board is to have research that you endorsed and signed off on in review proven flawed. It is a career ending event. I reject your theory of collusion if for no other reason than self-preservation of the reviewers.

    The fundamental issue is the same in Economics as in Climate Change research, the stuff that is presented by the press isn't subject to scrutiny by anyone. Thus, a Heartland Institute can glob together a couple of public domain photos about the rotation of the earth and label it the source of climate change with headlines that NASA or NOAA are hiding the truth.

    Actually, he's not. His sole paper is his dissertation: Atmospheric anomalies and crop yields in North America. Everything since 1979 has been editorials.

    I do find it interesting that all of the links that you provided lead to UVA. That's unfortunate.
     
  16. TheRealAirbns

    TheRealAirbns Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,425
    Likes Received:
    9,307
    Sep 12, 2019
    #77
    Unfortunately, those statistics are not accurate, as we've discussed several times. It'd be interesting to think about what kind of support would exist in an environment that pursued actual science instead of propaganda. One thing seems likely: real scientists wouldn't be rushing to talk about anything as ridiculous as "consensus," or which camp they fell in on a matter dependent on evidence.

    That's funny. Again, I've read the Climategate material. I've also read the long pattern of responses from the same people, as well what they did and tried to do when challenged. Much of it long after Climategate.

    You should think about reading the available material, too.

    Milutin Milankovitch first wrote about his hypotheses in the 1920s. You're being unreasonable if you're suggesting that his ideas haven't been both challenged and explored.

    So you're sticking to your approach? Claiming that a guy who has a PhD in ecological climatology; who was a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia for 27 years, reaching full professorship and teaching, among other things, advanced climatology; and who is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists; is not a legitimate climatologist? Well, whoever you're scraping your material from certainly has chutzpah, that's for sure.

    And by the way, he's published considerably more than just one thing, including after 1979. You can find a list of publications in which he was lead author in an archived version of his CV, here: https://web.archive.org/web/20111106022703/http://www.sej.org/initiatives/climate-change/patrick-michaels-cv-plain-text-file-climate-change-guideskeptics-and-cont I would have cut and pasted it, but it's far too long for a message board post.
     
    DJ4SC, CrownoftheValley and Troyhorn1 like this.

Share This Page