| General > General Technical Chat |
| heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial. |
| << < (52/67) > >> |
| cbutlera:
--- Quote from: coppice on August 09, 2023, 12:01:20 pm ---... The video is about a woman who published a climate study that followed the general consus and was idolised. Then people pointed out flaws. She looked at them, realised some of what she had written was incorrect, and published the adjustments needed. For this she was vilified. The video is certainly mostly about propaganda, but is not propaganda. Have you ever looked at any of the IPCC reports? Not the media's write ups about them, but the actual reports? When I have looked at exerts they sound much less scary than the media reports, but the activists don't like anything but the most extreme arguments. --- End quote --- Yes I have looked at it many times, I have a copy of the full report open right now. Before posting my earlier reply I searched through all 3056 pages of it for any evidence of a prediction that hurricane and storm frequency would increase monotonically year on year. I found none. I agree entirely that we should be discussing the contents of that IPCC report as representative of the scientific consensus rather than media reports. So with that in mind I ask again, where in that IPCC report is there any claim that is not supported by scientific research? I looked at the video carefully. Starting 2:00 minutes into the video the commentary says "But then some researchers pointed out gaps in her research. Years with low level of hurricanes... She realised her critics were right." The only evidence given to support this was a briefly shown document from Stephen McIntyre pointing out that hurricane and storm frequency was exceptionally low in 2006. Let's assume that McIntyre's research is correct. If Curry had previously claimed that hurricane and storm frequency would increase monotonically year on year, then she was right to reevaluate her own research. Are you suggesting that she was vilified for changing her mind on a specific claim that was never a part of the consensus in the first place? What was it that motivated her to abandon that consensus? At what time mark in the video does she cite any credible scientific evidence to justify her dramatic change of position? |
| Sredni:
--- Quote from: EEVblog on August 05, 2023, 06:43:51 am --- --- Quote from: snarkysparky on August 05, 2023, 03:06:46 am --- --- Quote from: EEVblog on August 05, 2023, 12:16:50 am --- --- Quote from: Dr. Frank on August 04, 2023, 02:44:03 pm ---Climate Research is therefore not yet a "complete" science, as the final experimental proof will be available in 30, 50, 100 years from now. --- End quote --- I suspect it will never be a complete science. It's just such a complex dynamic system, and our ability to accurately measure stuff on a global scale is limited. Even in the 30, 50, 100 years time, the "proof" may not be available. The result might match a prediction, but having absolute proof your model was right will still be elusive. They already have not had the best track record in this regard. --- End quote --- Can you name ONE complete science, according to your definition? If incomplete then there is no point ? --- End quote --- The ones that turn into practical engineering, you know, like electronics. Stuff that we've used and reproduce every day for centuries. --- End quote --- You have probably never read a solid state physics book. Half the pages of every solid state book serve the sole purpose of telling you that what is written in the other half is an outright lie. ;D |
| cbutlera:
--- Quote from: vad on August 08, 2023, 09:23:01 pm ---... This short video explains how the consensus is manufactured: --- End quote --- As a counterexample to the Judith Curry video above referenced by vad, I thought that the video below looked interesting. It's about libertarian conservative and former Cato institute energy analyst Jerry Taylor and coincidentally also features John Stossel, albeit briefly. I'm not suggesting that the video carries any great significance, other than as an example that demonstrates that public figures can change their position on AGW in the other direction too. I think that it is worth watching though, even if you don't agree with it, as was the Judith Curry video. How can anyone know that they are on the right side of the argument, if they don't listen to what the other side has to say? |
| SiliconWizard:
Who has actually read the IPCC reports in full? |
| EEVblog:
--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on August 09, 2023, 10:15:52 pm ---Who has actually read the IPCC reports in full? --- End quote --- The most interesting thing about the IPCC reports is the terminology they use, like "Likely", "Very Likely" etc, and they actually give a table for a % confidence level for what those terms actually mean. Once you understand what they mean, it opens your eyes bit. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |