Ocean News

I didn't say your quote was incomplete, I said your URL (Uniform Resource Locator -- aka website address) was incomplete.

 

Okay I fixed the broken url.
Here it is again.

http://www.aei.org/publication/for-...-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/

which if you take off the http://ww

reads thus: .aei.org/publication/for-earth-day-michael-crichton-explains-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/
but with the http ect shows like above. Don't know how it got broken when I pasted it.
works now

 

Quote
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/19/282503/-**********-are-Responsible-for-Global-Warming-Myth

While browsing the Top 10 Conservative Idiots at Democratic Underground, I found this disturbing item at #7. Michael Crichton didn't like some criticism about his views on global warming. You know, criticism about how the fiction writer thinks he knows more about the topic then say... every single respected climate scientist on the planet. The columnist who criticized Crichton in the New Republic cover story (subscription required) was Michael Crowley.

So how do you think Michael Crichton responded to this criticism? Did he write a letter addressing the merits of Crowley's argument? Did he appear on a news program to give his side of the debate? Did he just ignore the article in question?

No... instead, he created a character in his latest book named "Mick" Crowley, a Washington journalist and ******-****** *********.

Continued


Crowley, however, sees smallness not in his own *****, but in Crichton's heart, taking the literary low-blow as the highest compliment: That he was right. Says Crowley:
Call it the small man rule: If someone offers substantive criticism of an author, and the author responds by hitting below the belt, as it were, then he's conceding that the critic has won.

 

Haha. In the movie, Knights Tale, a character calling himself 'Chaucer' plans revenge on a pair of professional cheats, who had taken advantage of Chaucers gambling addiction, and cheated him of everything, including his clothes.
"I was naked for a day. You will be naked for eternity!"
"How so?" they laugh.
"By writing your nasty characters into one of my books, for the whole world to see, for centuries to come.", warned Chaucer.

GOOD ONE, MIKE!
I wonder if Crichton wrote any of that movie script?

 

The trouble with your ridicules statement and as usual rant is no one cares about people with gambling addiction or professional cheats.
Crowley, however, sees smallness not in his own *****, but in Crichton's heart, taking the literary low-blow as the highest compliment: That he was right. Says Crowley:
Call it the small man rule: If someone offers substantive criticism of an author, and the author responds by hitting below the belt, as it were, then he's conceding that the critic has won.

 

Oh! Something similar to calling names, those who don't accept or agree with your propaganda, labeling them "Deniers" at every possible opportunity, in the media, on forums like this one, and in public orations..
Apparently trying to lump us with those "deniers", who deny the Jewish Holocaust ever happened in Nazi Germany.
Is THAT the defeatist smallness you are referring to?

Or are you simply applauding the attacking of a dead man, who can no longer refute his detractors, as a pyrrhic victory?

" Pyrrhic victory [(peer-ik)]

A victory that is accompanied by enormous losses and leaves the winners in as desperate shape as if they had lost. Pyrrhus was an ancient general who, after defeating the Romans, told those who wished to congratulate him, “One more such victory and Pyrrhus is undone.”
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source

Of course, I can see Crowley would b pleased at being a character in a famous book. Every dog has his one day of fame!

 

Quote
Schools Are Doing a Terrible Job Teaching Your Kids About Global Warming

The first-ever survey of climate education isn't pretty.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/our-children-learning-about-climate-change

Kids are a vital part of the climate change conversation; they're the ones, after all, who have to live in the world the rest of us are screwing up. But if they go to a public school, they could be getting a very confusing education on the subject,

On Thursday, researchers published the first peer-reviewed national survey of science teachers on whether and how they teach about climate change, in the journal Science. The survey, which covered a representative sample of 1,500 middle and high school science teachers from all 50 states, found that classrooms often suffer from a problem also common in the media: the false "balance" of giving equal weight to mainstream climate science and climate change denial.

Science teachers, the study found, have a better grasp of the most basic climate science than the general public: 67 percent agreed that "global warming is caused mostly by human activities," 70 percent of middle school teachers and 87 percent of high school teachers spend at least an hour on global warming each year.

Perhaps most distressingly, most teachers are unaware of how many scientists agree that climate change is mostly caused by humans. Only 30 percent of middle school teachers and 45 percent of high school teachers agreed that the consensus was in the range of 81 to 100 percent. (It's about 97 percent.)

"Those teachers who are more on the small government, free markets, less regulation side of the [political] scale were the least likely to be aware of or accept the scientific consensus," Plutzer said. "And they were the most likely to introduce mixed messages."

"What's surprising is that many teachers personally think humans are the culprit [for climate change], but they are unaware that scientists share their views," said Eric Plutzer, a political scientist at Pennsylvania State University who was the study's lead author.

 

And despite my posting the proof numerous times, the false 97% consensus you love to assert was from a paper by Cooke; and in his own paper he admitted that only 67 (he was wrong, it was actually 41) of the approx 12,000 published peer reviewed papers, endorsed the statement humans were the primary cause of climate change.
He ADMITTED only .3 of 1% was the consensus, and yet STILL asserted it was 97% consensus.
And PEER REVIEWED! So much for merits of peer review where AGW is concerned.

I don't think you understand who's the BOSS in the USA.

The taxpayers are.
Our local property taxes are the primary funding for our local schools.
The school board asks for a millage vote (school taxes), and the local voters decide if they want to pay it or not.

In addition, a growing number of states have adopted school vouchers.
If I want to take my kid out of public school, and enroll them in private school, I take my tax money with me and give it to the private school.
13 states are doing it, and the District of Columbia, where the US Congress rules, is doing it.

Teachers don't get to teach their private held beliefs in public school.
They get fired by the school board, because otherwise the public school would be shut down for lack of tax dollars.

You can't steal our country and you can't steal our kids.

http://www.economist.com/node/9119786

" The subsequent results show that the children who received vouchers were 15-20% more likely to finish secondary education, five percentage points less likely to repeat a grade, scored a bit better on scholastic tests and were much more likely to take college entrance exams.

Voucher programmes in several American states have been run along similar lines. Greg Forster, a statistician at the Friedman Foundation, a charity advocating universal vouchers, says there have been eight similar studies in America: seven showed statistically significant positive results for the lucky voucher winners; the eighth also showed positive results but was not designed well enough to count.

The voucher pupils did better even though the state spent less than it would have done had the children been educated in normal state schools. American voucher schemes typically offer private schools around half of what the state would spend if the pupils stayed in public schools. The Colombian programme did not even set out to offer better schooling than was available in the state sector; the aim was simply to raise enrolment rates as quickly and cheaply as possible.

These results are important because they strip out other influences. Home, neighbourhood and natural ability all affect results more than which school a child attends. If the pupils who received vouchers differ from those who don't—perhaps simply by coming from the sort of go-getting family that elbows its way to the front of every queue—any effect might simply be the result of any number of other factors. But assigning the vouchers randomly guarded against this risk.

Opponents still argue that those who exercise choice will be the most able and committed, and by clustering themselves together in better schools they will abandon the weak and voiceless to languish in rotten ones. Some cite the example of Chile, where a universal voucher scheme that allows schools to charge top-up fees seems to have improved the education of the best-off most. "

"More evidence that choice can raise standards for all comes from Caroline Hoxby, an economist at Harvard University, who has shown that when American public schools must compete for their students with schools that accept vouchers, their performance improves. Swedish researchers say the same. It seems that those who work in state schools are just like everybody else: they do better when confronted by a bit of competition.

From the print edition: International "

"

 

What a senseless rant

 

Quote
The new age of climate exploration

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...016/feb/12/the-new-age-of-climate-exploration

On December 12, the 21st annual meeting of the world’s climate negotiators closed with adoption of the Paris Agreement. The task agreed by consensus among 195 nations is clear, ambitious, and complex: re-engineer the infrastructure of the global economy to eliminate practices that destabilize Earth’s climate system, while ensuring ongoing and expanded prosperity for all people everywhere.

That the task is difficult should not put us back on our heels. As we move into new territory, we will face new obstacles. This is how we learn, how we know if we are up to the challenge, how we know which adjustments to make, and how we succeed in crossing an unknown ocean.

Twenty-one years ago, in the summer of 1994, a 57-foot fiberglass sailboat named Cloud Nine set sail, with captain Roger Swanson at the helm. Cloud Nine carried a crew of six, who were attempting to transit the fabled Northwest Passage from east to west. There was a tremendous amount of pack ice choking off all the routes through the Passage that summer, and the crew of Cloud Nine was forced to abandon the voyage and retreat out of the Arctic
Thirteen years later, in the summer of 2007, Cloud Nine returned to the Arctic for another east-to-west attempt. This time around, the crew of six discovered little to no ice in the Northwest Passage. To the astonishment of those on board and of those watching their transit, the nearly 7000-mile voyage took only 73 days, and Cloud Nine never touched one piece of ice.

In the 13 short years between those two sailing expeditions to the far north, there had been a forty-percent loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. That is a 40% loss of our North Polar ice cap. This change is happening outside of Earth’s natural and geological cycles. Human activity is having a profound and sudden impact on our planetary climate systems and the Arctic is experiencing the most rapid and visible change.

 

"The task agreed by consensus among 195 nations is clear"

You mean agreed by the people supposedly representing those nations.


No treaty? No commitment.
who ever went from the USA was entirely powerless to make any commitment.
Only the US Senate can ratify a treaty.

Senseless rant?
Your 97% consensus is a lie, and most Americans know it.
Our scientists keep telling us, don't lump them into the AGW pot.


Now exactly how many climatologists, not a percentage, the actual number of people we are supposed to obey as world saviors?

searched and got this. Not very clear, and not very encouraging to the point that I should trust some unknown sized small group(, a few hundred?) who probably are 97% socialist in their politics.


https://answers.yahoo.com/question/...&p=how many american climatologists are there


Just how many climate scientists are there in the world?
I fished around on google, but could not pin down a hard number. I bring this up because, the Master of Science keeps tossing around these crazy percentages and positing these numbers as fact. Give me a link, not a blog Dana, but a link to a legitimate website to back up these claims. I'm trusting you... show more

Best Answer: I've heard commentators claim there are a few hundred climatologists in the world. This assertion suits both sides as proponents can claim that all the thousands of sceptically meteorologists and geologists in the world aren't qualified to comment on climatology and skeptics can support out that the doom and gloom really only comes from a handful of people.

The world can't support tens of thousands of AGW researchers. Research is expensive and there's limited scope to provide ever higher doomsday predictions and then trying to explain why the climate refuses to cooperate with their predictions.
Ben O · 6 years ago


Trevor
It depends how you define 'climate scientists'. Those that specifically study the climate are climatologists but there are many other branches of science that also involve the study of the climate.

In recent years 18,000 people have qualified as climatologists. It would be reasonable to assume that this constitutes no more than half the total number of climatologists, on that basis the number will be upwards of 36,000. There is no international register of climatologists so it's very hard to provide a specific number.

Some time ago I did read on a skeptics website that the number of climatologists was "only 31,000"

If you widen the definition of 'climate-scientists' to include related disciplines such as meteorologists and paleoclimatologists then the numbers will run into the hundreds of thousands.

Widen the definition further to include astrophysicists, atmospheric chemists, glaciologists and the like and you could probably add another 50,000.

If you were to extend the definition to include all overlapping disciplines such as sedimentologists, hydrologists and dendrochronologists then it's probable that the number of 'climate scientists' would be in the order of a million.
Trevor · 6 years ago

Wayne C
I see commentators proposing that glaciologists and other more diverse specialists be included as climatologists. That proposition is complete nonsense. These diverse studies do not qualify as expertise in climatology. Even the average climatologist is unqualified to render an opinion on global warming or climate change. After all, the real issue is not climatology but rather "climate sensitivity" to CO2. There are perhaps a few dozen truly qualified scientists world-wide who are truly qualified to comment rationally on climate sensitivity.
Wayne C · 1 year ago

?
The problem is that "climatologists" that study global temperatures are not the Hard scientists that know about "atmospheric physics"
The Hypotheses of the greenhouse gas effect" is quantum physics- the process of certain gases absorbing Infrared radiation. What happens next relates to how that absorbed energy affects the molecule and does the absorbed energy reradiate as IR or as longer wavelengths of electromagnetic waves as microwaves or radio waves as is predicted by the Kirchhoff formulas related to the 4th power of the absolute temperature.
climatologist are not "hard scientists" they are flat screen fortune tellers. I'd prefer t o go to the corner fortune teller and pay $5.00 for my fortune or a weather report for 100 years in the future
? · 10 months ago

Charles
Enough scientists to lobby for funding their hobby.
Charles · 2 months ago

Laine
-Those against the global warming hoax:

http://www.petitionproject.org/
Some 30K scientists who are against the global warming crusade.
An article about the petition from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Peti...

There is also a page with quotes. A Wikipedia entry that is a list of scientists giving quotations on their views of why global warming is not man made etc. Obviously a very incomplete list but it is useful for reading their ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sci...

-The other side...Those for believing Global Warming is man-made and therefore man needs to pay trillions of dollars and give up their rights to...wait for it...yes a group of other men who are "Correct Thinking":

University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and their worldwide affiliates.
Al Gore / The Democratic Party
Almost all major news sources who do whatever they are told.
All those religious zealot true believer Greenies who want to tax their air I breathe.
People who like to think that they were born to tell everyone else how to live.
Laine · 6 years ago

Northern Logger
I am not sure, however I would suggest on this site there are none.
Northern Logger · 6 years ago

Pepe
Too many.

 

Quote
The 5 telltale techniques of climate change denial
By John Cook
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/22/opinions/cook-techniques-climate-change-denial/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that humans are causing global warming. Nevertheless, a small proportion of the population continues to deny the science.

How do you identify climate science denial, and how do you respond to it? To address denial properly, you need to understand the telltale techniques used to distort the science. It turns out all movements that deny a scientific consensus, whether it be the science of climate change, evolution or vaccination, share five characteristics in common:
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. This has been found independently in a number of studies, including surveys of Earth scientists, analysis of public statements about climate change and analysis of peer-reviewed scientific papers. How might one cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific consensus? One technique is the use of fake experts.


The link between conspiratorial thinking and science denial has serious and practical consequences. Conspiracy theorists are immune to scientific evidence, as any evidence conflicting with their beliefs is considered part of a conspiracy. The implication is that the most effective approach is not changing the mind of the unchangeable. Rather a more fruitful approach is communicating the realities of climate change to the large, undecided majority who are open to scientific evidence. A crucial part of the puzzle is explaining the techniques of science denial. This has the powerful effect of inoculating people against the misinformation of climate science deniers.

 

I've posted many scientific studies by qualified peer reviewed scientists refuting man made climate change.

We have known since 2007 that water vapor is not, cannot be a feedback multiplier of warming.

Water vapor MODERATES, REDUCES warming because of albedo of increased clouds.

We know that CO2 has only a tiny potential in increasing warming itself, which is why the AGWers always call on feedbacks to explain CO2 is just a trigger.

Water vapor is not and cannot be a feedback multiplier.

So where IS your feedback?
It ain't water vapor, and without a feedback, CO2 doesn't even count!

This paper from Princeton 2007 explains WHY water vapor is not a feedback multiplier but the reverse. Some of the math symbols didn't copy. Go to the url.

http://www.princeton.edu/~lam/documents/WaterVapor4.pdf



"Carbon dioxide has three absorption bands with wave length below 5 microns.
For the earth, these bands can be ignored because Fig. 1 says their values are quite small.
There is another absorption band between 13 and 17 microns which is optically thick at sea level.
When water vapor, methane and nitrous oxide are included, the earth's atmosphere is essentially transparent to radiations between 7.5 microns and 13 microns|except for a narrow spike of ozone absorption just below 10 microns [6, see its Fig. 1(b)].
The earth's B(To) peak is inside this transparent window.
For wave lengths longer than 17 microns, there are many water vapor absorption bands (and thus some minor semi-transparent windows). See Fig. 2.4.1
Estimating total(To) total(To) is the earth's pre-industrial revolution effective emissivity the fraction of the total black body radiation flux (at To) that had managed to escape the earth.
This number can be computed from actual historical measure-ments. The usual quoted values range from 0:6 to 0:8.
Since the direct factor in Eq.(8) is roughly unity, the value of earth's climate sensitivity (293K) is thus numerically close to the value of her multiplier of indirect eects(E).

The \next" semi-transparent window for the earth is located on the longer
wave length side of the B(293K) peak, and thus itsE(T;1;2) is negative.
Using the Rayleigh-Jeans Law for long wave lengths, one can analytically show that E(T;1>> peak;1)!

4.3 Water Vapor Feedback

The above estimate of E(293K) when used in Eq.(8) would not give earth's B in the IPCC's likely range.
The bottom line is that the IPCC-endorsed climate sensitivity needs earth's multiplier to be between 2 to 4, or her E(293K) to be between 2 to 4, or her E(293K) to be between -2 and -4.
If E(293K) were positive, the earth's multiplier would be less than unity.
Water vapor feedback|which was not included in the above xed width transparent windows estimates|would modify the 's and push E(293K) in the negative direction: more absorption in unsaturated water vapor bands, widening of already saturated water vapor bands, albedo aected by clouds and ice, etc.
Could these and other indirect eects [7] overwhelm the rmainly positive (radiation physics) contribution of the 7.5 to 13 microns dominant transparent window to get E(293K) into the -2 and -4 range?


5 Observations
The earth's actual responses must include all direct and indirect effects.

5.1 Earth's Historical Experience
The current carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration is roughly one-third the way to doubling of the pre-industrial revolution value.
The earth's average surface temperature has risen roughly 0.7C since the industrial revolution.
If all of the observed historical temperature rise is attributed to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (33% increase), then 1.85C, which is slightly below the \likely range" and slightly above the very unlikely" range of the IPCC recommended numbers.
The IPCC's likely range of climate sensitivity is consistent with the observed warming and emissions data in the last few decades of the Twentieth Century.
However, roughly the same warming rate was also observed in the first few decades of the same century when the annual amount of carbon
dioxide then being emitted into the atmosphere was much smaller.

 

The link between conspiratorial thinking and science denial has serious and practical consequences. Conspiracy theorists are immune to scientific evidence, as any evidence conflicting with their beliefs is considered part of a conspiracy. The implication is that the most effective approach is not changing the mind of the unchangeable. Rather a more fruitful approach is communicating the realities of climate change to the large, undecided majority who are open to scientific evidence. A crucial part of the puzzle is explaining the techniques of science denial. This has the powerful effect of inoculating people against the misinformation of climate science deniers.

 

My favourite conspiracy theory is that 99% of conspiracy theories are put out there to discredit and obfuscate the real conspiracies. I have similar views on political activists. There just ain't enough of us genuine articles. I also have some brilliant economic theory, for those interested. Basically, anyone with more money that me has too much, and the rest of you should be content with what you've got. ;-)