The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Heretical thoughts about science and society > Comments

Heretical thoughts about science and society : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 15/12/2017

'A favorite word of Freeman's about doing science and being creative is the word 'subversive'.'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Yes man-made climate change scientists are full of the political herd-wisdom aimed at attracting research grants.
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 15 December 2017 9:24:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sorry Don. You're anything but a heretic? An the argument you seem to be persuaded by, inherently illogical/oxymoron?

Just a, I believe, recalcitrant intransigent contrarian fool with his old head buried somewhere warm and comfortable?

Are you still receiving research grants from the fossil fuel industry?

And what do you have against, cleaner than coal, safer than coal, cheaper than coal, nuclear energy?

But particularly, if brings with it enormous economic advantage/advancement?

Especially given the recent announcement by the IMF that they along with the majority of banks have no appetite whatsoever for any further investment in fossil fuel!?

With all due respect, of the two of us, I would suggest I'm the only heretic here with an entirely unconventional point of view?

Moreover, the most important voice in the room, is the one that disagrees with you and or, conventional wisdom!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 15 December 2017 9:26:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A gem! I've saved he Freeman essay for later reading. Thanks, Don
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 15 December 2017 9:36:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" I am saying that the problems are grossly exaggerated. "
This is a heresy ?
And 'central Australia was wetter' is his second heresy?
I'm so glad he won't be burnt at the stake for these offences.
What a brave soul he must be , he says.
Posted by nicknamenick, Friday, 15 December 2017 11:24:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You can of use science or refer to the writings/opinions of any scientist to "prove" or "disprove" anything.
Although it does not apply to Freeman Dyson there are hundreds of scientists who are shills for the political power of big industry, especially big pharma and big technological agriculture.

The author of these essays was thoroughly familiar with all of the research and findings re humanly caused global warming and climate change too.
He was also fully aware of the limitations of the now world dominant ideology/paradigm of scientism or scientific materialism,the cult of or to which Don is a fully paid up true believer.
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-science

It is of course an article of bad faith that mis-informs the world-view that Don promotes: namely that human beings are separate from the World Process. See also the last few paragraphs of this spontaneously given talk
This essay describes the hell-deep reservoir of fear sorrow and anger at the root of our dreadful sanity and "culture"
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/spacetim.html
This reference includes some amusing criticisms of the uninspected unconscious (essentially primitive) presumptions of what is usually promoted as science or scientism
http://global.adidam.org/media/science
This essay is a summary description of his political and cultural callings re the situation of globalized humankind - or the era of what is now in some circles rightly called the Anthropocene era.
http://www.dabase.org/p2anthro.htm
Posted by Daffy Duck, Friday, 15 December 2017 7:50:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Too much abuse from commenters to warrant a serious response.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Friday, 15 December 2017 8:15:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Accept big bang and evolution as science then you also believe in Santa and fairy tales. No wonder people swallow the man made gw myth.
Posted by runner, Friday, 15 December 2017 10:17:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Discovery isn't the only aspect of science. There's also reconfiguring your formulas and inventions to be better then they were before. Those reconfiguring usually lead to making an older concept into (hopefully) a better invention. But on the point of discovery, it is worth it to go out of your comfort zone. Test other theories, or to make a mess of things to just see what happens, then try to figure out why. (Instead of the other way of try to figure out why something occures before seeing that it actually happens that way). And discovery isn't about conclusions, so unfortunately it is also not as easily approached. But refining conclusions and testing conclusions are also part of the science enviornments. It's not all about discovery anymore. Maybe it never was and that was always the rarer element.

As for being heretical, I'd challenge that a bit. Instead of just being heretical and be on your own, why not take the scope of something forign in your community and take the work of others to see if they hold merrit or not. Personally I'd like to see medical studies on acupuncture. The field of acupuncture is old enough and refined in it's aporoach and results to hold merit. But there is more study on a pill to relieve an issue then there are other remedies. If there was a challenging model of thought in other fields of study like there is in medicine, then it would be good to take on those models from the expertise of those who are in those fields to do it well. Then study that and put the science to it's unknown worlds. Rediscover what has been discovered and let the experts of the field be the teachers instead of scientists. Let the scientists test it but over all be students.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 16 December 2017 4:51:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yup. We've always had EXPERTS who knew why it couldn't or wouldn't be done wouldn't work wasn't true!

And none more heretical than the flat earth society in London.

I heard a story which had Richard Brampton taking a high ranking flat earther from said society, for a free ride in one of his low orbit space craft.

Only to be offered congratulations upon landing, for the remarkable special effects and life like graphics which were at least as good as those bogus moon landing, videos.

Without question there are some folks for who, no amount of credible evidence will sway? But like doubting Thomas, must put their very hands in the wounds!

For years the tobacco industry told us tobacco was benign even as their own scientists painted a compelling and opposite picture in the boardroom but like true heretics, another when addressing any public forum. Ditto the asbestos industry and now the oil companies/marketeers!

Heresy being repeating falsehoods, when all the substantiated evidence shouts else!

i.e., What you get during a typical waning phase of the sun is a cooler period of indeterminate length, that could include another ice age!

Just not what we are having or have had! i.e., Record heat waves and record ice melts!

If that's abuse? Then add me to the list of alleged abusers and don't respond!

And given you're never ever going to say or allegedly think ought else? No point anyway!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 16 December 2017 10:13:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I'm the only heretic here with an entirely unconventional point of view?"
There are no thorium reactors producing power , no complete designs and so no way to quote their price of electricity. Unconventional view to say the opposite with good graphics and effects. Flat earth or flat-out fibs?
Posted by nicknamenick, Saturday, 16 December 2017 10:29:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NNN. Got your knickers in a nasty knot haven't you? And even when the topic was not raised, you had to target thorium? Which is nicely encapsulated by Richard Martin, prize winning investigative journalist and in his book, Super fuel, subtitled green energy.

Or worse get online, to look at a documentary on the fully operational Oak Ridge reactor at Tennessee. Where those interested can look at a video that includes, the physical plans and then watch as the parts are assembled as a complete reactor.

[Something you must prevent at all costs!]

The one that ran for over four years without accident or incident, and designed to run until the fuel was burnt and the fluorine electronically reprocessed onsite, to avoid some of the nasties caused by a premature shut down?

Which in normal operation would have been intended as a safe, temporary pause for maintenance, rather than a permanent shut down?

Finally, read or listen to and watch nuclear scientist Kirk Soresen and Thorium in four minutes. Or five minutes, or the entire google tech talk. Available for anyone bright enough to ignore the risible rubbish and ramblings of a passionate, passive anti nuclear advocate!

[Its a clever technique, just trying your best to sound like a refugee from a No Name Nuthouse!]

Moreover they can see a schematic of the 350 MW FUJI molten salt reactor if the want to download a free, "The case for thorium", PDF!

If only to prove just how duplicitous you MHAZE and a few others, Not Normal Numbskulls, have been in this space.

Fortunately the most important people, investors. Are persuaded by pragmatism and the precautionary principle, even if that means we have to buy our reactors from china and assemble them here? As proposed, it seems, by our largest energy supplier.

You'd be forgiven for believing banks the IMF and large energy suppliers, would have done a very thorough, evidence based, due diligence, before proposing or embarking on similar carbon free, cheaper than coal, heretical, thorium based ventures?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 17 December 2017 7:59:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Alan got any thorium reactors mate . Just 1 , cheapy second hand DIY Bunnings carport kit will do. $1.98 PkwHACGST Bitcoin low-fat teflon organic work-for-the-dole.
Posted by nicknamenick, Sunday, 17 December 2017 8:07:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no question about whether climate is changing or not, the questions about whether man has influenced it or not, has been bypassed. The questions that are providing debate for scientists are what rate is climate is changing:
... using sophistry does not account for changes in the cryosphere (Andes, Arctic Ocean, Siberia, Alaska, European Alps, Himalayas, New Zealand Alps, or Antarctica etc).
... Oceans are warming as displayed by the number of huge storms, Harvey was more costly than Sandy and Katrina combined.
... the current wildfires in California are happening during their winter and could turn out to be the most destructive fires experienced, already placed 4th most severe recorded for California (fire seasons are changing).
... South Eastern US is regularly flooding when there are king tides and no precipitation has occurred.
... Rain bombs happen frequently, where huge amounts of rain fall in short time frames causing severe flooding.
... There has been coral bleaching generally around the Earth.

The above matters have been objectively measured, and are just a few items that display climate change.

Where are the mega Reports of hundreds of pages, written by numerous scientists, and referenced by at times thousands of references, that contrarian scientists have produced?Contrarian blog sites are meaningless in comparison to detailed mega Reports.
Posted by ant, Monday, 18 December 2017 9:09:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant, your assertions are so broad and so vague that it is probably not sensible to respond, but, here's a few:

Changes in cryosphere — the Antarctic data show no change of any consequence for fifty years, and if there is change, it is cooling, not warming. (See climate4you website.)

Oceans warming, well they have been for a while, but shouldn't you be using measurements, not frequency of storms (which doesn't help your case anyway)?

The severity of the California wildfires seems to have been aided by many years of drought.

The others are not even sensible, so far as I can see.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Wednesday, 20 December 2017 7:48:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for your reply, Don.

I gave several examples in relation to the cryosphere and have references to what I wrote.
I did go to your site; but, I believe what scientists such as Richard Alley, Eric Rignot, James Hanson, Jason Box et al have written peer reviewed articles, I also visit sites such as NASA and NOAA. Glaciers in the Pine Island area of West Antarctica are quite unstable, the concern being that grounding lines are changing.
I do not use one reference only to form my opinion.

The Totten glacier of East Antarctica is not as stable as once thought:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/16/warm-ocean-water-is-slamming-into-and-melting-the-biggest-glacier-in-east-antarctica/?utm_term=.8a4da279c42

There is a hyperlink to the science in the article.
Hyperlinks take you to the science described in article.

Don, the drought in California broke quite spectacularly, there were news films about the possibility of very major dam bursting (Oroville Dam).

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/2/13/14598042/oroville-dam-flood-evacuation

Since then rainfall has once again been very low.

Attribution is a fairly new area being researched by climate scientists.

If you can provide a mega Report of hundreds of pages, written by numerous scientists and underscored by thousands of references by contrarian scientists; then, I might believe you have a point. I have a number of such references written by scientists using peer reviewed research.

You say "The others are not even sensible, so far as I can see."

What others,can you provide information that scuttles them? If you are not able to do so so it is a meaningless comment.

Here is an interesting NOAA article for you to mull over.

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/alaskan-north-slope-climate-change-just-outran-one-our-tools-measure
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 20 December 2017 11:50:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don you stated my assertions are so broad, and vague.
If you have been following what has been happening with the climate; then, you would understand immediately my cryosphere comments.

An example of a mega Report:

http://science2017.globalchange.gov

Quote from Executive Summary which encapsulates much of what I wrote previously:

"In addition to warming, many other aspects of global climate are changing, primarily in response to human activities. Thousands of studies conducted by researchers around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean acidification; and increasing atmospheric water vapor."

There are a number of articles about how Inuit culture is changing due to climate change:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/30112017/alaska-global-warming-archaeology-permafrost-history-artifacts-sea-ice-hunting-whaling-traditions?utm_source=InsideClimate+News&utm_campaign=b507e160f8-Weekly+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_29c928ffb5-b507e160f8-327850601

Due to permafrost thawing archeologists were able to work on an old Inuit home.
The body of a young girl buried hundreds of years ago was found when part of a Bluff eroded due to permafrost thawing.

It gets a bit hard for contrarians when disciplines not associated with climate science, provide concilience.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 20 December 2017 4:24:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant, you still continue to make broad statements that you say are supported by the sites you go to. I suggested that you look at the Antarctic temperature graph in climate4you, and you wave it away. Why? It is from an official source — all the data on this website are from official sources, not articles that you read and liked — and it shows that the Antarctic has been stable for fifty years, and more recently is cooling. But that doesn't accord with you view of things, so you dismiss it.

If you want to argue with what I've written, you need to use data, not assertions.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Saturday, 23 December 2017 11:54:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant, I'll make it really easy. Humlum's latest report is out (for November). It still shows cooling in the Antarctic, and the data are HadCRUT4. That's good stuff, Ant. Hint: pages 25-27. Yes, you will see that Arctic temperatures have risen a little, but most of the ice in that region, Greenland excepted, is sea ice. About 90 per cent of the land ice in the world is in Antarctica.

Go on, have a look at it... (climate4you) ... and while you are there, study all the rest of the official data. Do you really think they support your point of view?
Posted by Don Aitkin, Saturday, 23 December 2017 12:05:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don
climate4you is a blog site of no substance compared to research which has been peer reviewed or mega Reports.

Don, it is not a matter of reading articles which I liked, if an article does not have hyperlinks to science; then, it holds far less value.

Warm water is undermining the grounding lines of Antarctica, the Larson C Ice Shelf has calfed, a huge event earlier in 2017. An objective fact.

A Guardian article written by a climate scientist; not a lay person, journalist, or political scientist:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/23/melting-and-cracking-is-antarctica-falling-apart-climate-change

http://www.sciencenews.org/article/when-larsen-c-ice-shelf-broke-it-exposed-hidden-world

Pine Island Glaciers are not stable:

http://phys.org/news/2016-11-west-antarctic-ice-shelf.html

http://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2016/11/03/unstoppable-destabilization-of-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-threshold-may-have-been-crossed/

Grounding lines moving:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060140/full

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6232/327

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13243

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117717301813

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=83672

http://www.bas.ac.uk/project/dating-and-modelling-fast-ice-sheet-grounding-line-retreat-in-antarctica/

Over the years I have read many articles about Antarctica; Richard Alley and Eric Rignot are the go to scientists; but, as shown there are numbers of scientists who have researched Antarctica.

When a contrarian provides a reference I go to it; unless its a blog by Watts, and the find critiques on the reference provided.
Posted by ant, Saturday, 23 December 2017 6:00:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regarding the Arctic:

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card

An important comment to remember in relation to sea ice ... "The sea ice cover continues to be relatively young and thin with older, thicker ice comprising only 21% of the ice cover in 2017 compared to 45% in 1985."
It is multi year ice that is an important structural component for sea ice.

The trend line for volume of sea ice is going down, though there are variations from year to year.

Or also in relation to the Arctic:

http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/Snow-Water-Ice-and-Permafrost-in-the-Arctic-SWIPA-2017/1610

Earlier I provided an article about Barrow, where instrumentation was not able to keep up with what had been happening temperature wise.
A descriptive article about temperature in Alaska for December 2017 which provides some credence to the reference provided previously:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/12/19/baked-alaska-49th-state-is-having-an-insanely-warm-december/?utm_term=.8912719e5d7c

You stated that: " If you want to argue with what I've written, you need to use data, not assertions."

If you follow climate science you would not need greater explanations.

I provided a reference about an Archeologist working at Barrow, Alaska, if you had read the article you would understand that the Archeological party was having to work extra fast as there was concern about permafrost thawing and erosion taking place destroying their site.

Infra structure in Alaska is being damaged through permafrost thawing:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/23/climate/alaska-permafrost-thawing.html

The greening of tundra areas in Alaska, Northern Canada and Siberia; along with the formation of ponds, is another aspect displaying thawing of permafrost, "drunken trees" is a further example.

Don, climate science is based on some absolute facts:

.Without greenhouse gases, nobody would exist (Professor K Anderson).
.The four most common greenhouse gases are CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gase (man created). The main feed back greenhouse gas is water vapour.
.Fossil fuels took millions of years to be created through the accumulation and break down of organic matter. We have used those sources of fuel for an exceptionally short geological time frame.
.Physics and Chemistry are also part of the bed rock of climate science.
Posted by ant, Saturday, 23 December 2017 7:13:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don
Earlier I wrote about the trend lines going down in the Arctic, here is an article written by a Physicist, displaying what is occurring:

http://thinkprogress.org/watch-the-arctic-death-spiral-in-this-amazing-video-b63486b99383/#.y6ogew60z

Humlum debunked:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/09/el-ninos-effect-onco2-causes-confusion/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers

The Guardian provides appropriate hyperlinks.

Sea level Rise:

People having to leave coastal plains in Louisiana:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-22/louisiana-sinking-fast-prepares-to-empty-out-its-coastal-plain

$500 million in infra structure built at Miami to ward off sunny day floods when king tides occur:

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/12/life-sea-level-rise-hotspot/

Rain bombs, the article has a hyperlink to Kevin Trenberth:

http://www.flassbeck-economics.com/how-climate-change-is-rapidly-taking-the-planet-apart/

A reference to a mega Report on Oceans:

http://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-046_0.pdf

Seth Miller, a scientist, provides some history; and then, criteria in relation to how science matters can be rationally evaluated. Seth Miller uses 9 criteria to show the strength of the science in relation to the greenhouse impact of carbon dioxide:

http://extranewsfeed.com/what-climate-skeptics-taught-me-about-global-warming-5c408dc51d32

Humlum does not believe CO2 has an impact on climate; please, show how the 9 criteria used by Seth Miller are wrong.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 24 December 2017 7:33:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant, you can't debunk Humlum's site without debunking all the official datasets. I give up.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Sunday, 24 December 2017 8:03:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don you stated:

"you can't debunk Humlum's site without debunking all the official datasets. I give up."

What crap; that is just a cop out.

Several objective factors have been provided in relation to climate change in references provided:

. how contrarians misconstrue data
. erosion of coast land as shown in reference about Archeologist.
. Ocean warming
. how action is required in Louisiana and Miami to ward off sea level rise
. how ice sheets are being undermined in Antarctica with grounding lines moving towards the glaciers feeding the ice sheets (Larson C and Pine Island Glaciers)
. mega Reports sheet home the cause of climate change to CO2
. criteria were provided necessary to debunk CO2 being a greenhouse gas
. water vapour being a secondary greenhouse gas had a reference provided
. A short film about the trend line of sea ice volume in the Arctic Ocean was provided

Just over a year ago a yacht sailed the North East and North West passages of the Arctic Ocean.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/boat-that-sailed-around-arctic-arrives-in-westport-1.2828736

Experimentation displays how CO2 takes up warmth.

Mythbusters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

Just prior to the COP23 Conference at Bonn, 15,000 scientists signed a letter stating a second warning had been given in relation to the climate.

http://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2017/11/14/15000-scientists-warn-time-is-running-out-to-save-the-planet.html

I have provided some references to mega Reports which have been put together by numerous scientists and referenced by numerous peer reviewed research papers. They comply with what is understood about climate change.

Psychological projection has occurred when you state ..."But that doesn't accord with you view of things, so you dismiss it.

You were a good political scientist in your day; but please leave climate science alone, and leave it to scientists such as Trenberth, Rignot, Anderson, Hansen, Box, Francis, Hausfather, Schmidt, Alley, Barber, Rahmstorf, Steffen, Dessler, Emanuel, Cullen et al to provide reliable information.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 24 December 2017 10:51:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"you can't debunk Humlum's site without debunking all the official datasets. I give up."

Sorry, ant, you just go on with the same stuff. Most of your references are not data, and you dismiss the official data about Antarctic cooling.

Merry Christmas.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Sunday, 24 December 2017 2:13:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don
It is irksome when I provide references which represent the work of thousands of climate scientists; I can understand that when you have held a particular view. I gave a list of climate scientists and have seen research produced by them, or seen them interviewed on films.

Climate scientists almost universally agree that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas. Experiments can be performed to show that to be the case, an example was provided. Humlum does not agree with that proposition.
You are not a climate scientist, and cannot say what is right or wrong in weighing up one reference against many.

I provided a couple of references where climate scientists provided a critique of Humlum’s work.

You can provide an opinion ; but, opinions do not hold up against science.

Enjoy your Christmas.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 24 December 2017 6:44:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don

You say Humlum cannot be debunked, I gave a Guardian reference previously which had a hyperlink to published critiques of Humlum and other contrarian climate scientists in Theoretical and Applied Climatology.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

Apart from the Journal critique, they provided supplementary commentary on how they arrived at showing Humlum et al being wrong.

http://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00704-015-1597-5/MediaObjects/704_2015_1597_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

The team tried to replicate conclusions Humlum et al provided, page 57 shows a graph that debunks Humlum et al, there is prior discussion. It is very brave to suggest Humlum et al cannot be debunked. The prior discussion indicated that data that did not fit the Humlum et al conclusions was not used.

This information had already been given in prior references provided.

The reference on Oceans virtually provided an anthology of what was seen to be be happening in 2016, 451 pages referenced by over a thousand scientists. The foundation of this huge Report is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which is the official view held by climate scientists and peak Science Agencies eg AGU.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 26 December 2017 8:13:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy