Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Climate change denier appointed head of NOAA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I notice you're not engaging those that can ...
    Fair enough.

    Originally posted by oxmixmudd
    I do admit that. Nevertheless, this particular scientist is not denying implications of the data that have any significant nuance to them, he is denying elements that are in the forefront of the research and for which the data is nearly* incontrovertible - specifically that the massive rise in atmospheric CO2 has human origin and that the measured rise is sufficient to be the major contributor to the warming in the latter half of the 20th and the 21st centuries. And so it is fairly easy to recognize that he is off the rails with his conclusions. As such, he is simply not qualified to head a scientific organization that is dealing with any aspect of climate science.
    So you're saying that he's saying that there is no connection between an increase in CO2 and industrialization? Or that the amount of correlation is unknown? Or that he believes the connection is more limited than what many alarmists are claiming? If he's saying there is absolutely no connection, then I can see a "denial."

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Ronson View Post
      Fair enough.



      So you're saying that he's saying that there is no connection between an increase in CO2 and industrialization? Or that the amount of correlation is unknown? Or that he believes the connection is more limited than what many alarmists are claiming? If he's saying there is absolutely no connection, then I can see a "denial."
      Its not that simple. As I research his positions, it appears he is more about challenging the idea that the amount of change in temperature for the amount of co2 in the atmosphere is less than what the research has shown. And that other factors are producing the warming signal. He also seems to be trying to use arguments (the urban heat island angle) that say the observed signal is exaggerated by temperature readings taken in artificially hot areas with lots of concrete etc. The issue there is that there is a carefully sited reference network that has been created (USCRN) that provides data that can be compared to the USHCN data that undergoes an extensive analytical process to remove a number of known biases, urban heat island bias being one of them. And that reference data shows almost identically the same warming signal as the processed USHCN data. Thus it stands contrary to his assertion the magnitude of the signal is exaggerated.

      And so on it goes. In the end, he is basically out there searching for ways to arrive at a different conclusion than the one the data drives. That is called cherry picking or special pleading. In science, we want the data to drive the conclusions, not our preferences. We don't search for ways to get our preferred conclusion.

      That is of course idealized. Sometimes there are anomalies and the search is on both for flaws in the way the data is gathered and interpreted as well as new explanations that naturally account for all the data.

      But on the balance here with legates we are looking at a fellow that is searching for data that justifies his conclusion rather that a man looking for an explanation for all the data.
      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 09-15-2020, 08:25 PM.
      He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

      "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        Its not that simple. As I research his positions, it appears he is more about challenging the idea that the amount of change in temperature for the amount of co2 in the atmosphere is less than what the research has shown. And that other factors are producing the warming signal. He also seems to be trying to use arguments (the urban heat island angle) that say the observed signal is exaggerated by temperature readings taken in artificially hot areas with lots of concrete etc. The issue there is that there is a carefully sited reference network that has been created (USCRN) that provides data that can be compared to the USHCN data that undergoes an extensive analytical process to remove a number of known biases, urban heat island bias being one of them. And that reference data shows almost identically the same warming signal as the processed USHCN data. Thus it stands contrary to his assertion the magnitude of the signal is exaggerated.

        And so on it goes. In the end, he is basically out there searching for ways to arrive at a different conclusion than the one the data drives. That is called cherry picking or special pleading. In science, we want the data to drive the conclusions, not our preferences. We don't search for ways to get our preferred conclusion.

        That is of course idealized. Sometimes there are anomalies and the search is on both for flaws in the way the data is gathered and interpreted as well as new explanations that naturally account for all the data.

        But on the balance here with legates we are looking at a fellow that is searching for data that justifies his conclusion rather that a man looking for an explanation for all the data.
        So he's an anti-alarmist wanting to manipulate or "deny" certain data to justify his position. OK.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Ronson View Post
          So he's an anti-alarmist wanting to manipulate or "deny" certain data to justify his position. OK.
          Would you then agree he is not then qualified to lead a government scientific organization (as would someone be that was overtly alarmist in their approach)? What we want directing scientific research is a person of significant qualifications and a commitment to the purity and apolitical nature of the science itself. A person that values the data and its interpretation within and ONLY within the confines of good scientific practice and implication, not someone willing to manipulate or filter that research to support a specific outcome.
          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 09-16-2020, 09:49 AM.
          He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

          "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            Would you then agree he is not then qualified to lead a government scientific organization (as would someone be that was overtly alarmist in their approach)? What we want directing scientific research is a person of significant qualifications and a commitment to the purity and apolitical nature of the science itself. A person that values the data and its interpretation within and ONLY within the confines of good scientific practice and implication, not someone willing to manipulate or filter that research to support a specific outcome.
            I will agree there must be better people, less political people available for that position. But whether we like it or not, Climate Change is an insanely political subject - as exampled by the Shunyadragon and JimL rhetoric in this thread. And I still don't believe Legates qualifies as a "denier" in any reasonable sense. He is likely just pushing back against alarmists who want to apply extreme measures to counter something that most probably is not reversible... and would only crash our economy in an attempt.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Ronson View Post
              I will agree there must be better people, less political people available for that position. But whether we like it or not, Climate Change is an insanely political subject - as exampled by the Shunyadragon and JimL rhetoric in this thread. And I still don't believe Legates qualifies as a "denier" in any reasonable sense. He is likely just pushing back against alarmists who want to apply extreme measures to counter something that most probably is not reversible... and would only crash our economy in an attempt.
              I think if you look a bit more carefully, denier is an appropriate term as it is used. Though in a sense I don't really like that term, because it also closes the door to legitimate questions about areas that are not fully understood that might have some corrective connotation. This is another consequence of the politicisation of science. Science must be able to follow the data, even if that means correcting preveious understandings. The political nature of this issue means that people must fight misinformation that currently is trying to undermine the current conclusions, but that same resistence to misinformation will also act to hinder corrective and real information should it arise.

              Science must be allowed to proceed on its own and independently of government or politics. But the problem is that sometimes what science discovers reveals a danger to people. And if correcting that danger will take money or power away from those that have it,it's ability to function independent of government is endangered. And it takes people of great principle,conviction, and character to stay out of the way and let it be what it is, and respond as needed to what it reveals.
              He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

              "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                So he's an anti-alarmist wanting to manipulate or "deny" certain data to justify his position. OK.
                Similar to how alarmists are willing to deny and manipulate data to justify their own position.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Similar to how alarmists are willing to deny and manipulate data to justify their own position.
                  I won't say no 'alarmist' has done that. But in the end, you call 'alarmists' anyone that actually follows the data and publishes the scientifically derived conclusions that data implies. Legates is labeled a 'denier' because he doesn't do that, because he filters or obfuscates that data to lesson its real impact.

                  What the actual data implies is itself 'alarming'. And that has caused some people to be 'alarmed'. And it has caused some people that don't quite understand that same data that are NOT scientists to exaggerate or misrepresent the impact of that 'alarming' data, which in turn has given some others a reason to be skeptical of that same alarming data. But worse, it has also caused large corporations that would lose a lot of money if the alarm is heeded to 'persuade' certain politicians and to fund certain people (including Legates) to try to soften or even undermine the science so as to lessen its naturally alarming conclusions, thus preserving a little while longer the $$$ they would like as income, but at the same time increasing the danger to the climate (and overall cost to humanity) of the long term effects through inaction.
                  Last edited by oxmixmudd; 09-16-2020, 12:09 PM.
                  He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                  "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    But in the end, you call 'alarmists' anyone that actually follows the data and publishes the scientifically derived conclusions that data implies.
                    False.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      False.
                      No - actually, that is just the simple fact of the matter MM. There is science associated with global warming. Anyone that accepts the conclusions of that science you call an alarmist. Anyone that pushes back on it and tries to find some way to counter it, you don't call an alarmist.
                      He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                      "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X