Climate change as a tool of tyranny

[sayak83]

All good stuff, but should be in the past tense. The guy is dead (died in 2020, at the age of 82).

RIP.

 

[Ebionite]

for ignoring the calibrated satellite altimeter records

Morner's argument was that calibration had been fudged to make the data consistent with the IPCC position, so no cigar there. What do you think the best argument for intent to mislead is?

 

[exchemist]

Morner's argument was that calibration had been fudged to make the data consistent with the IPCC position, so no cigar there. What do you think the best argument for intent to mislead is?

The instances of deceitful and paranoid behaviour that I cited, but which you have chosen not to comment upon.

 

[Ebionite]

The satellite data was not corrected post-hoc based on one cherry picked tidal data set from Japan

Morner said that the cherry picked data was from Hong Kong, not Japan, so that's a strawman.

 

[Ebionite]

The instances of deceitful and paranoid behaviour that I cited.

Which were?

 

[exchemist]

Which were?

In my previous post (518)

 

[sayak83]

Morner said that the cherry picked data was from Hong Kong, not Japan, so that's a strawman.

Its a mistake of my recollection. Not a strawman. Please respond to the substance of the post.

 

[Ebionite]

In my previous post (518)

I responded to that in my #522. There's still nothing that would indicate Morner had an intent to mislead.

 

[Ebionite]

Its a mistake of my recollection. Not a strawman. Please respond to the substance of the post.

Still nothing there that would indicate that would indicate Morner had intent to mislead.

The fact is that Morner knows this, as the paper directly rebuts his work.

I don't think that you know what a fact is.

 

[exchemist]

I responded to that in my #522. There's still nothing that would indicate Morner had an intent to mislead.

You did not.

 

[Ebionite]

You did not.

I did. Click the up arrow on my #522, it goes to your #518.

 

[exchemist]

I did. Click the up arrow on my #522, it goes to your #518.

Most of which you have not addressed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

QUOTE
In an interview in June, 2007, Mörner described research he had done in the Maldives that had been reported in the documentary Doomsday Called Off.[15]Specifically, he mentioned a tree he had discovered growing close to the shoreline as evidence to support his claim that sea level had actually fallen rather than risen. He also alleged that the tree had been deliberately destroyed by a group of Australian researchers who were promoting the IPCC view that sea level was rising.[16]

Mörner's use of early TOPEX/Poseidon satellite altimeter data to claim that sea levels are not rising was criticised by members of the TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 Science Working Team in Nerem et al. (2007),[17] for ignoring the calibrated satellite altimeter records, which show that sea levels are rising.[17]

UNQUOTE

QUOTE
In 1995, Mörner gave several courses in dowsing at Stockholm University in the summer program, and also outside of the university.[20][21] He claimed that dowsing could be used not only to find water, but also to discover Curry and Hartmann lines. When reported in the press, he received sharp criticism from the Swedish scientific community and the Swedish skepticism movement.[22] Mörner persisted[23] and the conflict escalated,[24] leading to a formal ban from the president of the university to teach dowsing, citing the Law on Higher Education, until he could present scientific evidence for dowsing. In the summer of 1996 Mörner held a symposium at the university where he presented what he considered to be supporting evidence for his teachings. A committee appointed by the university dismissed Mörner's claims in December 1996.[25] He was named "Confuser of the Year" for 1995 by Vetenskap och Folkbildning,[26] a Swedish organisation in support of the broadening the understanding of the scientific method. The renowned American skepticist James Randi offered him a reward of US$971,000 if Mörner could show that dowsing worked in a scientifically controlled experiment. Mörner later rejected the offer.[27] In late 2002 Mörner reaffirmed his stance in a documentary on Swedish television.[28]

UNQUOTE

From: Nils-Axel Mörner - Wikipedia

There is also this: Wayback Machine. indicating Mörner has engaged in misrepresantation.

He also engaged in malpractice in publishing: https://www.science.org/content/art...limate-skeptic-papers-publisher-kills-journal

As a fan of Indian food I am for anything that helps me find more curry.

So I can dowse for it you say?

 

[wellwisher]

Sea level is not one thing. Fo example, the earth is wider at the equator than at the poles causing sea level to be higher at the equator; relative to a perfect sphere and its center of gravity.

Sea level on the local scale is also function of the density of the earth, below, to the center of gravity. If we have inner earth shifts in materials, you can get gravity changes that can make the seal level change either way at any location.

Climate scientists are not to experts in gravity, so they make a rookie mistake. Below is an image of the earth's gravity. This is not to scale, but shows how the earth would look, based on its gravity profile, if it was made of one material, instead of water and various minerals with different densities.

Scientists have discovered that the inner earth material is denser north to south than radially along the equator from center. This is not exactly due to centrifugal force caused by the spinning earth. It has to with maximum solar evaporation at then equator and water migration toward the core. Notice how the earth gravity profile makes a single material earth appear more stretch north to south except for a few continental bumps.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sea level is not one thing. Fo example, the earth is wider at the equator than at the poles causing sea level to be higher at the equator; relative to a perfect sphere and its center of gravity.

Sea level on the local scale is also function of the density of the earth, below, to the center of gravity. If we have inner earth shifts in materials, you can get gravity changes that can make the seal level change either way at any location.

Climate scientists are not to experts in gravity, so they make a rookie mistake. Below is an image of the earth's gravity. This is not to scale, but shows how the earth would look, based on its gravity profile, if it was made of one material, instead of water and various minerals with different densities.

Scientists have discovered that the inner earth material is denser north to south than radially along the equator from center. This is not exactly due to centrifugal force caused by the spinning earth. It has to with maximum solar evaporation at then equator and water migration toward the core. Notice how the earth gravity profile makes a single material earth appear more stretch north to south except for a few continental bumps.

And how do you propose that those changes would happen? I know how they can change, but that won't help you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The issue was interpretation. You didn't address that.

Actually, I did. I wrote, "The data supporting AGW is robust and beyond reasonable doubt for those who can interpret it."

Why would his attitudes be relevant to his expertise?

Are you familiar with the term ethos from the philosophy of argumentation? It refers to the meta-messages a speaker or writer sends his audience in addition to the explicit meaning of his argument, such as does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he seem competent, does he show good judgment, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, and the like.

The problem is that there's no impartial forum for looking at this issue without prejudice.

Problem for whom? Not for people interested in the facts regarding climate change. I have no problem there. I'm quite satisfied that the community of climate scientists is correct in the main about what has happened and what is coming and has been for decades. It sounds like you have some problem there.

Science is ethically agnostic.

Science doesn't generate ethics, but science is grounded in an ethical milieu. Get caught violating its core ethical precepts, and you are professionally disgraced. Look at Behe. Look at Hovind. Both have become laughingstocks for violating those values.

There is no reason to believe someone who calls others liars without evidence.

Sure there is, if he has a good reputation. Here's where the ethos thing comes in. I've been reading @sayak83 for a few years now. I know his attention to detail and accuracy, a bit about his fund of knowledge and expertise, and his intellectual temperament and integrity. And those are the ethics of the scientific community and of the academic community at large.

I haven't been reading the discussion to which you refer past the point where he began explaining why Molnar was not a reputable or reliable source, because I don't need to hear his argument. And I have an analogous profile for you. I don't really need to know any more about that discussion than what each of you is claiming to have an opinion about who is likely correct.

So here's my tentative position regarding your comment above: Sayak may or might not have called Molnar a liar. If he did, then Molnar probably got caught doing what sayak would call lying, and that I would likely agree that that was lying. It's not a method for deciding truth. It's a method for ordering hypotheses in terms of likelihood, which is the definition of a razor - a way to choose what to disregard and what ideas to prefer before investigating them or in place of investigating them.

Deflecting won't work.

He wrote, "No, it was about the Maldives. Go back and check. post 492," which is the opposite of deflecting. He tried to get you back on track. This is the kind of thing that undermines one's ethos.

I did. Click the up arrow on my #522, it goes to your #518.

This, too. You just called this deflecting when another poster made a similar comment.

 

[sayak83]

Still nothing there that would indicate that would indicate Morner had intent to mislead.

I don't think that you know what a fact is.

It's a fact that every scientist knows when his paper is being referred, cited or rebutted.
I have explained clearly why it's transparently obvious that he was deliberately misleading people by continuosly propagating his ideas that had been shown to be wrong. If you refuse to see the obvious , that is on you.

 

[metis]

The problem is that there's no impartial forum for looking at this issue without prejudice.

How could you possibly know that? Also, are you aware that if a scientist intentionally falsifies data that this would likely end his/her career?

 

[F1fan]

No, it's implied by your own words and the fact that science is ethically agnostic.

Implied? It's good that you are admitting it is your interpretation and not my actual wording. Why not just accept what experts in climate science conclude?

 

[Ebionite]

Most of which you have not addressed.

Apart from the alleged cherrypicking, I didn't see anything there relevant to intent.