metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
There is simply no such thing as "liberal science".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Human-caused climate change - what the scientists are actually saying
- Thread starter anotherneil
- Start date
There is simply no such thing as "liberal science".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If I did not use the phrase "well respected professional journal" then that was my fault. Anyone who is familiar with how the tobacco industry tried to affect peer review should understand how various fossil fuel groups have tried to do the same for AGW. I checked out one article because the title intrigued me a bit. When I checked the journal I found that it failed the "well respected" part of the challenge:
"The journal was regarded as "a small journal that caters to climate change denialists".[11] It has played an important role in attacking climate science and scientists, for example Michael E. Mann.[12]
In 2011, a number of scientists such Gavin Schmidt, Roger A. Pielke Jr., Stephan Lewandowsky and Michael Ashley have criticised that E&E has low standards of peer review and little impact.[13][14] In addition, Ralph Keeling criticized a paper in the journal which claimed that CO2 levels were above 400 ppm in 1825, 1857 and 1942, writing in a letter to the editor, "Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science?"[13][15]
A 2005 article in Environmental Science & Technology stated that the journal is "obscure" and that "scientific claims made in Energy & Environment have little credibility among scientists."[12] Boehmer-Christiansen acknowledged that the journal's "impact rating has remained too low for many ambitious young researchers to use it", but blamed this on "the negative attitudes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)/Climatic Research Unit people."[16] According to Hans von Storch, the journal "tries to give people who do not have a platform a platform," which "is then attractive for skeptic papers. They know they can come through and that interested people make sure the paper enters the political realm."[12]
When asked about the publication in the Spring of 2003 of a revised version of the paper at the center of the Soon and Baliunas controversy, Boehmer-Christiansen said, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"[17]
The journal has also been accused of publishing papers that could not have passed any reasonable peer review process, such as one in 2011 that claimed that the Sun was made of iron.[2][18]
Energy & Environment - Wikipedia
EDIT: Further reading about E & E:
Real Climate faces libel suit
Prominent blog run by climate scientists could be sued by E&E after accusing the journal of 'shoddy' peer review
Last edited:
anotherneil
Active Member
John Theon - PhD (University of Tennessee)
Here are some links that list his work (including his peer-reviewed material) and background:
scholar.google.com
Here are some links that list his work (including his peer-reviewed material) and background:
Google Scholar
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
In the news, a US tax payer funded, nonprofit, national news organization; NPR or National Public Radio, which is supposed to be news neutral, has been shown to have used a totally Left Wing biased coverage of important news cycles since 2016. This was obvious for years, but covered up with misinformation. Now that it has been shown, via a top level executive whistle blower, that NPR was not just biased; tells one side, but was also on a mission to damage the other side with misinformation. The tax payers were told they are hearing unbiased news by a non profit, even though we now know NPR has 100% Liberal staff, with Conservative taxes payer paying half their tax payer tab. Below is an article from the USA News, which is slanted Left. Even they cannot sugar coat this any longer or lose their own credibility.
NPR editor quit after telling the truth about liberal bias in media. It's time to defund them.
If you look at Academia, this is similar being dominated by Liberal Ideology; at the very top and in the middle. Many of the Liberal Scientists are the same Scientists who will peer review papers for Man Made-up Climate change. Is this similar to how NPR was supposed to peer review news stories in an unbiased fashion? Can we expect a Liberal Dominated University research funding and peer review system to be unbiased? Anyone not with that program is called a denier, and not someone with an alternate POV. That is a tell for Fascism. The term denier justifies censorship and harassment. Alternate POV gets a day in court.
Academia is headed by a predominance of Liberal Administrators, who are the people who will decide money matters such as research priority. If they team up with the majority of Professors, who are also Liberal and work as a team like, NPR; administration and foot soldiers and they promote more Liberal science papers for peer review and publication, while discrediting for those "denier" Conservative views, who will appear to be right in terms of the most peered reviewed publications? This is NPR 2.0.
Until the University system purges their political bias, from top, down, all we will get is a consensus of Liberal DEI science, that controls the funding and peer review processes. A consensus is easy to form, and can also appear legitimate. Climate science is still based on dice and cards science, which means black box, and any theory goes, if the theory appears to plot well; hotdogs as a function of won baseball games.
Rational science is not this flexible in terms of stacking the deck or loading the peer review dice. Universities need to upgrade to rational science so science is not dumbed down to the level of political consensus.
Rational Science and Marketing
This debate used to be called or framed as "global warming", which was an objective metric. The temperature was a single thing that many groups could measure and compare on an objective and rational way. However, the computer model predictions were always high, and political doom and gloom never was on schedule.
Those who were hell bent on running some angle, called in the marketing teams and they rebranded global warming into a new shiny package called climate change. Climate change is a subjective matrix, that works better with dice and card math and bogeyman politics. Temperature was too rational and too easy to measure and very hard to spin. But with climate change, if It gets hot or cold it is called climate change. If it rains too much or not enough this called climate change. It is a win-win no matter if we plot hamburgers or hotdogs at baseball games.
Philosophy of Science
There is more natural earth data connected to natural climate change, than to man made climate change. Natural climate change has been investigated for decades and the data covers a billion years of natural earth climate change history. On the other hand, this is the first example of manmade climate change in the earth's history, with the polar melt down and earth flood test of concept theories, has not even finished, yet Liberals are ready to go to production.
Isn't science supposed to finish at least the first test, and then do a second team test, before going production? How can a consensus form a fair second team for falsification? Natural has done many full tests over thousands snd even millions of so natural earth science is consistent with the Philosophy of Science. Man made, on the other hand, its on its first ever test, ever, and is trying to cheat the philosophy, using the philosophy of con job bogeyman politics to skip steps; marital law shakedown. Is it time to get rid of the philosophy of science or should we keep the philosophy and make sure the manmade consensus finishes the first test of concept, and then the natural climate change or"deniers", get a chance to falsify, before we make go to into production?
Climate always changes year to year. Can you name me two years in a row where there was no change. The record heat and rains of last summer were not predicted by any of the man made models. This tells me another or "natural" variable suddenly became active and was not included in the man made assumptions. This variable was connected to geological change and the huge eruption of the under ocean Tonga Volcano.
A volcanic eruption sent enough water vapor into the stratosphere to cause a rapid change in chemistry - NOAA Research.
This eruption was massive with 200,000 lightning strikes. The inner earth has a major impact on surface climate change, since water is continuous from the core of the earth to the atmosphere. My concern is with all the eggs in the CO2 basket, and the implied disruption of world economies to mitigate that bogeyman, this approach will leave billions of people vulnerable, to natural climate change effects. Below is a good summary video of mother nature, altering the global climate, well beyond the man made predictions in a matter of weeks.
NPR editor quit after telling the truth about liberal bias in media. It's time to defund them.
If you look at Academia, this is similar being dominated by Liberal Ideology; at the very top and in the middle. Many of the Liberal Scientists are the same Scientists who will peer review papers for Man Made-up Climate change. Is this similar to how NPR was supposed to peer review news stories in an unbiased fashion? Can we expect a Liberal Dominated University research funding and peer review system to be unbiased? Anyone not with that program is called a denier, and not someone with an alternate POV. That is a tell for Fascism. The term denier justifies censorship and harassment. Alternate POV gets a day in court.
Academia is headed by a predominance of Liberal Administrators, who are the people who will decide money matters such as research priority. If they team up with the majority of Professors, who are also Liberal and work as a team like, NPR; administration and foot soldiers and they promote more Liberal science papers for peer review and publication, while discrediting for those "denier" Conservative views, who will appear to be right in terms of the most peered reviewed publications? This is NPR 2.0.
Until the University system purges their political bias, from top, down, all we will get is a consensus of Liberal DEI science, that controls the funding and peer review processes. A consensus is easy to form, and can also appear legitimate. Climate science is still based on dice and cards science, which means black box, and any theory goes, if the theory appears to plot well; hotdogs as a function of won baseball games.
Rational science is not this flexible in terms of stacking the deck or loading the peer review dice. Universities need to upgrade to rational science so science is not dumbed down to the level of political consensus.
Rational Science and Marketing
This debate used to be called or framed as "global warming", which was an objective metric. The temperature was a single thing that many groups could measure and compare on an objective and rational way. However, the computer model predictions were always high, and political doom and gloom never was on schedule.
Those who were hell bent on running some angle, called in the marketing teams and they rebranded global warming into a new shiny package called climate change. Climate change is a subjective matrix, that works better with dice and card math and bogeyman politics. Temperature was too rational and too easy to measure and very hard to spin. But with climate change, if It gets hot or cold it is called climate change. If it rains too much or not enough this called climate change. It is a win-win no matter if we plot hamburgers or hotdogs at baseball games.
Philosophy of Science
There is more natural earth data connected to natural climate change, than to man made climate change. Natural climate change has been investigated for decades and the data covers a billion years of natural earth climate change history. On the other hand, this is the first example of manmade climate change in the earth's history, with the polar melt down and earth flood test of concept theories, has not even finished, yet Liberals are ready to go to production.
Isn't science supposed to finish at least the first test, and then do a second team test, before going production? How can a consensus form a fair second team for falsification? Natural has done many full tests over thousands snd even millions of so natural earth science is consistent with the Philosophy of Science. Man made, on the other hand, its on its first ever test, ever, and is trying to cheat the philosophy, using the philosophy of con job bogeyman politics to skip steps; marital law shakedown. Is it time to get rid of the philosophy of science or should we keep the philosophy and make sure the manmade consensus finishes the first test of concept, and then the natural climate change or"deniers", get a chance to falsify, before we make go to into production?
Climate always changes year to year. Can you name me two years in a row where there was no change. The record heat and rains of last summer were not predicted by any of the man made models. This tells me another or "natural" variable suddenly became active and was not included in the man made assumptions. This variable was connected to geological change and the huge eruption of the under ocean Tonga Volcano.
A volcanic eruption sent enough water vapor into the stratosphere to cause a rapid change in chemistry - NOAA Research.
This eruption was massive with 200,000 lightning strikes. The inner earth has a major impact on surface climate change, since water is continuous from the core of the earth to the atmosphere. My concern is with all the eggs in the CO2 basket, and the implied disruption of world economies to mitigate that bogeyman, this approach will leave billions of people vulnerable, to natural climate change effects. Below is a good summary video of mother nature, altering the global climate, well beyond the man made predictions in a matter of weeks.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That is not what "climate change" is about. This is what climate change is actually about: Climate change - Wikipedia
They purposely misunderstand, don't bother with them. It's just feeding a troll.
anotherneil
Active Member
Sallie Baliunas - PhD (Harvard University); research scientist
Peer-reviewed articles by this research scientist: Google Scholar
Peer-reviewed articles by this research scientist: Google Scholar
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So no applicable peer reviewed articles. Sorry, she cannot help you.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Just another science denier. That he wrote peer reviewed articles in the past does not help you. You need modern peer review from well respected professional journals to even being to claim that you have a case.John Theon - PhD (University of Tennessee)
Here are some links that list his work (including his peer-reviewed material) and background:
Google Scholar
When you only show that someone wrote peer reviewed articles sometime in the past without linking any ones that are on topic and from reliable sources you have in effect admitted that he is a science denier too:
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
It seems that way..
..and yet, they would accomplish their agenda more efficiently, if they acknowledged the seriousness of
climate-change, but criticized the often crazy-economic policies that have been proposed to "fix it".
anotherneil
Active Member
Henrik Svensmark - PhD & professor (Technical University of Denmark)
Links to peer-reviewed articles by this scientist:
scholar.google.com
Links to peer-reviewed articles by this scientist:
Google Scholar
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Guess what happens when one makes such claims? He has written peer reviewed papers on this topic. That is how science is done. Then other scientists test your claims and see if they are true or not. In this case, no, Cosmic Radiation is only weakly tied to GW and what little force it may have is overwhelmed by CO@:Henrik Svensmark - PhD & professor (Technical University of Denmark)
Links to peer-reviewed articles by this scientist:
Google Scholar
The same work dumbed down a bit:
Cosmic radiation causes fluctuations in global temperatures, but doesn't cause climate change
(Phys.org)—Unlike electromagnetic radiation, which consists of massless and accelerated charged particles, galactic cosmic rays (CR) are composed mostly of atomic nuclei and solitary electrons, objects that have mass. Cosmic rays originate via a wide range of processes and sources including...
anotherneil
Active Member
Kevin Dayaratna - PhD (University of Maryland)
Peer-reviewed articles by this scientist: Kevin Dayaratna
Peer-reviewed articles by this scientist: Kevin Dayaratna
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, you failed again. Fake journals. You are once again using doctors to defend smoking.
You did not get the challenge right. You need to find peer reviewed articles form well respected, professional journals. Why is that so hard to understand? The one example where you did was refuted.
Tell me, are you a creationist? You are arguing exactly like one.
Here is your argument to date:
anotherneil
Active Member
Piers Corbyn - MSc (University of London); astrophysicist
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
El Niño and La Nina are two effects that have impacted global climate, since they were first documented in the 1600's, by fishermen who noticed cyclic changes in fishing patterns. These are two natural climate changing effects, that are not man made up. These can explain many observable changes in global climate, like the drought in California. CO2 will often get credit, but El Niño came first.
By looking at global maps, where these appear, one can see a correlation to the Pacific Ring of Fire; active undersea geology along plate boundaries. The Wiki link below has 280 plus peer review papers of this driver of global climate change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Niño–Southern_Oscillation
There are also man made up peer reviewed publications trying to blame El Niño on manmade, even though El Niño came first and predates the Industrial Revolution by at least 2 centuries. Using dice and cards math; sale of hotdogs and baseball wins, manmade climate change is now predicted to make the El Niño worse. Man made is always better a bogeyman who is stronger than nature.
You can publish rubbish, if you contribute to the man made narrative and/or do not challenge it. The El Niño publications try to stay neutral and not make a big deal about their subject that appeared centuries before man made up. Liberal academia is Fascist and scientists know what has to be done, or not done, to get science in the system.
What is El Niño and how is it influenced by climate change?.
Inner Earth and Climate Change.
Active deep ocean geology is heating the oceans from below. This is a better explanation for El Niño. Water has an unusually high and anomalous heat capacity curve, with heat capacity defined as the amount of heat needed to increase the temperature of a substance one degree.
Water is unusual in that its heat capacity drops as temperature increases from 5C to 40C where it reaches a minimum at 40C or 104F. Then the heat capacity curve increases again. When you heat cold deep ocean water, the heat capacity of the water drop, causing the ocean floor to warm even faster than expected.
An analogous example of this faster heating, due to a heat capacity change, is going to the beach in the summer. The dry sand is always hotter than the wet sand. Dry sand does not have a high heat capacity. Therefore the same solar heat input, on the dry sand, will cause its temperature to rise faster. The wet sand has a higher heat capacity, due to the water, and therefore the same solar heat can be distributed and stored, so the temperature will rise much slower.
Essentially the odd heat capacity curve of water and thermal vents on the bottom of the ocean, causes the heat capacity of the deep ocean to decrease. This causes a beach sand effect; gets even hotter. Both the radiation and convection effects amplify.
The heat capacity curve for CO2 gas is more like that of most other materials, where heat capacity increases with temperature (and pressure). This means as CO2 goes into the atmosphere, where it is colder and the pressure is lower, its heat capacity drops; beach sand effect. The CO2 heats ups faster and radiates more into space the higher it goes. The CO2 thermal blanket loose its R-value.
This in not a peer reviewed paper. The truth speaks for itself; basic engineering principles.
By looking at global maps, where these appear, one can see a correlation to the Pacific Ring of Fire; active undersea geology along plate boundaries. The Wiki link below has 280 plus peer review papers of this driver of global climate change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Niño–Southern_Oscillation
There are also man made up peer reviewed publications trying to blame El Niño on manmade, even though El Niño came first and predates the Industrial Revolution by at least 2 centuries. Using dice and cards math; sale of hotdogs and baseball wins, manmade climate change is now predicted to make the El Niño worse. Man made is always better a bogeyman who is stronger than nature.
You can publish rubbish, if you contribute to the man made narrative and/or do not challenge it. The El Niño publications try to stay neutral and not make a big deal about their subject that appeared centuries before man made up. Liberal academia is Fascist and scientists know what has to be done, or not done, to get science in the system.
What is El Niño and how is it influenced by climate change?.
Inner Earth and Climate Change.
Active deep ocean geology is heating the oceans from below. This is a better explanation for El Niño. Water has an unusually high and anomalous heat capacity curve, with heat capacity defined as the amount of heat needed to increase the temperature of a substance one degree.
Water is unusual in that its heat capacity drops as temperature increases from 5C to 40C where it reaches a minimum at 40C or 104F. Then the heat capacity curve increases again. When you heat cold deep ocean water, the heat capacity of the water drop, causing the ocean floor to warm even faster than expected.
An analogous example of this faster heating, due to a heat capacity change, is going to the beach in the summer. The dry sand is always hotter than the wet sand. Dry sand does not have a high heat capacity. Therefore the same solar heat input, on the dry sand, will cause its temperature to rise faster. The wet sand has a higher heat capacity, due to the water, and therefore the same solar heat can be distributed and stored, so the temperature will rise much slower.
Essentially the odd heat capacity curve of water and thermal vents on the bottom of the ocean, causes the heat capacity of the deep ocean to decrease. This causes a beach sand effect; gets even hotter. Both the radiation and convection effects amplify.
The heat capacity curve for CO2 gas is more like that of most other materials, where heat capacity increases with temperature (and pressure). This means as CO2 goes into the atmosphere, where it is colder and the pressure is lower, its heat capacity drops; beach sand effect. The CO2 heats ups faster and radiates more into space the higher it goes. The CO2 thermal blanket loose its R-value.
This in not a peer reviewed paper. The truth speaks for itself; basic engineering principles.
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
You'll have to expand on that .. are you saying that the only way mankind can prosper on
planet earth, is by consuming more and more fossil fuels?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You refuted yourself with this one.
anotherneil
Active Member
Kary Mullis - PhD (UC Berkeley); biochemist:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Still the wrong branch of science.
How are those Carletons? Smooth. They add cream to their tars.