“climate emergency”

#151
#151
OHvol40 said:
If you want to come off the hyperbole and have an actual conversation about it then you can review this...

Climate Science Special Report: Executive Summary

Which is where I derive most of my knowledge on the issue. What do you refute?
Click to expand...

Good gawd man...anybody can googlefoo

"According to the authors, CSSR suffers from many of the same shortcomings and biases apparent in the previous work produced by the USGCRP. For instance, the report relies heavily on information from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has a long history of producing failed predictions and deeply flawed reports."

Publications - A Critique of the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 2017 Climate Science Special Report | Heartland Institute

And yet you ignore the premise of my post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, 0nelilreb and AM64
#152
#152
OHvol40 said:
Did you not read the synopsis that you posted?

“Mr. Koonin argues not against current climate science but that what the media and politicians and activists say about climate science has drifted so far out of touch with the actual science as to be absurdly, demonstrably false.”

Doesn’t sound like what you describe at all.
Click to expand...

I did - I also read this part

Now, one of America’s most distinguished scientists is clearing away the fog to explain what science really says (and doesn’t say) about our changing climate. In Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Steven Koonin draws upon his decades of experience—including as a top science advisor to the Obama administration—to provide up-to-date insights and expert perspective free from political agendas.
Fascinating, clear-headed, and full of surprises, this book gives readers the tools to both understand the climate issue and be savvier consumers of science media in general. Koonin takes readers behind the headlines to the more nuanced science itself, showing us where it comes from and guiding us through the implications of the evidence.

and this from the article I linked

Any reader would benefit from its deft, lucid tour of climate science, the best I’ve seen. His rigorous parsing of the evidence will have you questioning the political class’s compulsion to manufacture certainty where certainty doesn’t exist.

Mr. Koonin says he wants voters, politicians and business leaders to have an accurate account of the science. He doesn’t care where the debate lands.

I also noted in this thread I recommended because I hope it is an objective review of the science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, Orangeslice13 and AM64
#154
#154
volinbham said:
I did - I also read this part

Now, one of America’s most distinguished scientists is clearing away the fog to explain what science really says (and doesn’t say) about our changing climate. In Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Steven Koonin draws upon his decades of experience—including as a top science advisor to the Obama administration—to provide up-to-date insights and expert perspective free from political agendas.
Fascinating, clear-headed, and full of surprises, this book gives readers the tools to both understand the climate issue and be savvier consumers of science media in general. Koonin takes readers behind the headlines to the more nuanced science itself, showing us where it comes from and guiding us through the implications of the evidence.

and this from the article I linked

Any reader would benefit from its deft, lucid tour of climate science, the best I’ve seen. His rigorous parsing of the evidence will have you questioning the political class’s compulsion to manufacture certainty where certainty doesn’t exist.

Mr. Koonin says he wants voters, politicians and business leaders to have an accurate account of the science. He doesn’t care where the debate lands.

I also noted in this thread I recommended because I hope it is an objective review of the science.
Click to expand...
I posted a comprehensive and collaborative objective review of climate science from 13 independent agencies and organizations. I’ll take that over a guy selling books on Amazon, thank you.
 
#157
#157
Orangeburst said:
Good gawd man...anybody can googlefoo

"According to the authors, CSSR suffers from many of the same shortcomings and biases apparent in the previous work produced by the USGCRP. For instance, the report relies heavily on information from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has a long history of producing failed predictions and deeply flawed reports."

Publications - A Critique of the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 2017 Climate Science Special Report | Heartland Institute

And yet you ignore the premise of my post.
Click to expand...
So you found a critique... what specifically is false or questionable? They use multitudes of information sources and even rank their conclusions based on confidence levels.

Again, I’ll ask, what specifically do you refute amongst the conclusions (that we all know you’ll never read anyway, it’s too long).
 
#160
#160
volinbham said:
that you dismiss the book out of hand because you've decided you have all the facts already and all the findings are settled in your mind.
Click to expand...
I don’t dismiss the book out of hand, I’m simply saying my source is better than yours. Honestly, it sounds like he’ll reinforce most things in the climate report and then go on about politics, which I’m not terribly interested in. You’re free to indulge away.
 
#161
#161
OHvol40 said:
So you found a critique... what specifically is false or questionable? They use multitudes of information sources and even rank their conclusions based on confidence levels.

Again, I’ll ask, what specifically do you refute amongst the conclusions (that we all know you’ll never read anyway, it’s too long).
Click to expand...

Well being 1500 pages, you did not read it either or have the the ability to accept or refute.

The day the elite start leading by example and selling their oceanfront properties, I might get on board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1, StarRaider, AM64 and 2 others
#162
#162
OHvol40 said:
I don’t dismiss the book out of hand, I’m simply saying my source is better than yours. Honestly, it sounds like he’ll reinforce most things in the climate report and then go on about politics, which I’m not terribly interested in. You’re free to indulge away.
Click to expand...

I think the insights will be more about how reports like these emerge more so than politicians exaggerating. He appears to be more interested in looking for where scientists move from research to advocacy. I'm relatively sure that your source is a mix of both (mostly research).
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#163
#163
OH - if I recall correctly you are in some science connected graduate program? If that recollection is true I think this type of book would be valuable to examine how science can stray from science. I've been a PhD for 27 or so years and it's clear that research often stretches beyond findings. A colleague of mine performed multiple studies examining how research article (peer reviewed) conclusions included recommendations that were not grounded in the findings of the study. The worst offender was one of the top journals in his field. In short, it's always worth holding science to science. My biggest beef with Fauci is how he moves from science to speculation freely all while saying he's simply reporting the science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1, StarRaider, AM64 and 2 others
#164
#164
Orangeburst said:
Well being 1500 pages, you did not read it either or have the the ability to accept or refute.

The day the elite start leading by example and selling their oceanfront properties, I might get on board.
Click to expand...
Waiting for others to change rather than deciding to do so based on objective critical thought is always the best policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dergibvol
#166
#166
volinbham said:
OH - if I recall correctly you are in some science connected graduate program? If that recollection is true I think this type of book would be valuable to examine how science can stray from science. I've been a PhD for 27 or so years and it's clear that research often stretches beyond findings. A colleague of mine performed multiple studies examining how research article (peer reviewed) conclusions included recommendations that were not grounded in the findings of the study. The worst offender was one of the top journals in his field. In short, it's always worth holding science to science. My biggest beef with Fauci is how he moves from science to speculation freely all while saying he's simply reporting the science.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have a doctorate in the medical field.

Here is a excerpt from the introduction that explains this particular review very well:

“Periodically taking stock of the current state of knowledge about climate change and putting new weather extremes, changes in sea ice, increases in ocean temperatures, and ocean acidification into context ensures that rigorous, scientifically-based information is available to inform dialogue and decisions at every level. This climate science report serves as the climate science foundation of the NCA4 and is generally intended for those who have a technical background in climate science.”

It is extremely well researched, well founded, comprehensive, and a collaborative of over a dozen departments and organizations that all have differing motivations. Personally, I point to this study for exactly that reason. It isn’t beyond reproach, but it’s as close as humanly possible when reviewing something as large and as complex as the climate. I haven’t found anyone that can contradict a single finding and I’ve been posting it for almost 4 years.
 
#167
#167
OHvol40 said:
Yes, I have a doctorate in the medical field.

Here is a excerpt from the introduction that explains this particular review very well:

“Periodically taking stock of the current state of knowledge about climate change and putting new weather extremes, changes in sea ice, increases in ocean temperatures, and ocean acidification into context ensures that rigorous, scientifically-based information is available to inform dialogue and decisions at every level. This climate science report serves as the climate science foundation of the NCA4 and is generally intended for those who have a technical background in climate science.”

It is extremely well researched, well founded, comprehensive, and a collaborative of over a dozen departments and organizations that all have differing motivations. Personally, I point to this study for exactly that reason. It isn’t beyond reproach, but it’s as close as humanly possible when reviewing something as large and as complex as the climate. I haven’t found anyone that can contradict a single finding and I’ve been posting it for almost 4 years.
Click to expand...

no one here can contradict a single finding or none of the findings can be contradicted? big difference. I'd be shocked if every single finding is accurate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and AM64
#168
#168
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and AM64
#169
#169
OHvol40 said:
I don’t dismiss the book out of hand, I’m simply saying my source is better than yours. Honestly, it sounds like he’ll reinforce most things in the climate report and then go on about politics, which I’m not terribly interested in. You’re free to indulge away.
Click to expand...

How do you know your source is better than the book referenced if you dismiss it without reading it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#171
#171
So now that the Earth is spinning faster. I'm waiting for someone to advance the theory that because the surface is exposed to solar radiation for shorter time periods (not cumulative mind you) that there's less heating and a new ice age coming. The next logical thing would then be that the ice buildup at higher altitudes leads to that old inertia thing that slows the revolutions down and people once again start screaming we're going to melt. Of course, since we're rotating faster there's the argument made to be made that increased friction will make heating worse. And the one that says the change isn't revolutionary enough to make a difference, but it's fun to watch people in a dither.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst and McDad
#173
#173
Undeniably Trust Us! Says a bunch of lying pols, orgs like the UN, federal agencies and fed funded scientific orgs. GTFO.
Not my fault for denying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb and AM64
#175
#175
volinbham said:
no one here can contradict a single finding or none of the findings can be contradicted? big difference. I'd be shocked if every single finding is accurate.
Click to expand...
I’d be shocked if anyone could point out a factual reason why it wouldn’t be accurate.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top