exactly, that's why I'm saying democracy is flawed.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..Does Greta Thunberg have a science degree, do all the kids missing school to protest climate change have science degree's. Does Logman have a science degree. Do the people making editorial decisions on "theconversation" have climate science degree's.
I think the only "non-expert" opinions you and decrepit want shutdown are the ones you don't agree with. Stop pretending its anything different to that.

No, your examples don't have science degrees - they don't need them because they're just advocating for the expert consensus.

You're not an expert, probably fully understand <1% of the science, yet insist the science is wrong. And demand to be heard.

Why?

Just to be clear, The Conversation is not advocating shutting down "free speech". It has just asked that comments meet the standard of discourse and level of evidence expected of academics. It turns out that there is very well laid out pathway to dispute the climate science literature. That is the pathway what all science adheres too: Disclose funding sources, declare conflicts of interest, conduct and write up a study, publish in a peer reviewed journal and civil, evidence based debate at meetings, replicate the findings etc. The process isn't perfect, but is always looking to improve itself. There wouldn't be a climate scientist around who wouldn't be happy to be proven wrong. Why haven't deniers taken this path to prove their point? In reality the evidence is overwhelming and from many different sources. If you are going to dispute that, well to paraphrase Bayes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So if your response to someone saying "we should act on the IPCC report" is "well, here is a photo of you on a yacht and I think I can see a plastic water bottle in the background" then your opinion is of such little value that it doesn't belong in the comments of The Conversation, and frankly probably shouldn't be propagated beyond the room you are sitting in. Thanks for coming to my TED talk :-)

Select to expand quote

Dr Duck said..
Just to be clear, The Conversation is not advocating shutting down "free speech". It has just asked that comments meet the standard of discourse and level of evidence expected of academics. It turns out that there is very well laid out pathway to dispute the climate science literature. That is the pathway what all science adheres too: Disclose funding sources, declare conflicts of interest, conduct and write up a study, publish in a peer reviewed journal and civil, evidence based debate at meetings, replicate the findings etc. The process isn't perfect, but is always looking to improve itself. There wouldn't be a climate scientist around who wouldn't be happy to be proven wrong. Why haven't deniers taken this path to prove their point? In reality the evidence is overwhelming and from many different sources. If you are going to dispute that, well to paraphrase Bayes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So if your response to someone saying "we should act on the IPCC report" is "well, here is a photo of you on a yacht and I think I can see a plastic water bottle in the background" then your opinion is of such little value that it doesn't belong in the comments of The Conversation, and frankly probably shouldn't be propagated beyond the room you are sitting in. Thanks for coming to my TED talk :-)

Well put

Select to expand quote

Dr Duck said..
Just to be clear, The Conversation is not advocating shutting down "free speech". It has just asked that comments meet the standard of discourse and level of evidence expected of academics. It turns out that there is very well laid out pathway to dispute the climate science literature. That is the pathway what all science adheres too: Disclose funding sources, declare conflicts of interest, conduct and write up a study, publish in a peer reviewed journal and civil, evidence based debate at meetings, replicate the findings etc. The process isn't perfect, but is always looking to improve itself. There wouldn't be a climate scientist around who wouldn't be happy to be proven wrong. Why haven't deniers taken this path to prove their point? In reality the evidence is overwhelming and from many different sources. If you are going to dispute that, well to paraphrase Bayes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So if your response to someone saying "we should act on the IPCC report" is "well, here is a photo of you on a yacht and I think I can see a plastic water bottle in the background" then your opinion is of such little value that it doesn't belong in the comments of The Conversation, and frankly probably shouldn't be propagated beyond the room you are sitting in. Thanks for coming to my TED talk :-)

i think we can end the discussion on that note.

Select to expand quote

Dr Duck said..
Why haven't deniers taken this path to prove their point?

Easier said than done.
Science is not without momentum. The science of geology withstood a minority of oddball scientists pushing the continental drift point of view for hundreds of years.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift

Select to expand quote

log man said..

Dr Duck said..
Just to be clear, The Conversation is not advocating shutting down "free speech". It has just asked that comments meet the standard of discourse and level of evidence expected of academics. It turns out that there is very well laid out pathway to dispute the climate science literature. That is the pathway what all science adheres too: Disclose funding sources, declare conflicts of interest, conduct and write up a study, publish in a peer reviewed journal and civil, evidence based debate at meetings, replicate the findings etc. The process isn't perfect, but is always looking to improve itself. There wouldn't be a climate scientist around who wouldn't be happy to be proven wrong. Why haven't deniers taken this path to prove their point? In reality the evidence is overwhelming and from many different sources. If you are going to dispute that, well to paraphrase Bayes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So if your response to someone saying "we should act on the IPCC report" is "well, here is a photo of you on a yacht and I think I can see a plastic water bottle in the background" then your opinion is of such little value that it doesn't belong in the comments of The Conversation, and frankly probably shouldn't be propagated beyond the room you are sitting in. Thanks for coming to my TED talk :-)

i think we can end the discussion on that note.

Sorry Logman I don't think the standard of your discourse or the level of evidence you produce gives you a right to make that call.

Select to expand quote

Dr Duck said..
Just to be clear, The Conversation is not advocating shutting down "free speech". It has just asked that comments meet the standard of discourse and level of evidence expected of academics. It turns out that there is very well laid out pathway to dispute the climate science literature. That is the pathway what all science adheres too: Disclose funding sources, declare conflicts of interest, conduct and write up a study, publish in a peer reviewed journal and civil, evidence based debate at meetings, replicate the findings etc. The process isn't perfect, but is always looking to improve itself. There wouldn't be a climate scientist around who wouldn't be happy to be proven wrong. Why haven't deniers taken this path to prove their point? In reality the evidence is overwhelming and from many different sources. If you are going to dispute that, well to paraphrase Bayes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So if your response to someone saying "we should act on the IPCC report" is "well, here is a photo of you on a yacht and I think I can see a plastic water bottle in the background" then your opinion is of such little value that it doesn't belong in the comments of The Conversation, and frankly probably shouldn't be propagated beyond the room you are sitting in. Thanks for coming to my TED talk :-)

Just to be clear.....Q and A also had a show a week or two ago pushing the censorship of opposing views to man made climate change on the grounds the science is now clear and opposing opinions are "dross"- a word repeated by two of the guests to attack 'deniers' as they put it.

The conversation is a website. By comments I'm not sure if they mean content or comments to articles.

It sounds very much like an excuse or mechanism to shut down free speech on the grounds of not being scientific.

If the above criteria were to be met - NO denier content would ever be presented!

Opposing evidence will be considered "dross" and binned.

Recently in the mainstream media we are seeing a push to censor any opposing concerns on this topic. As I've said before the mainstream media is highly censored at present and to go willingly a long with more is just asking for trouble.

The Conversation is an independent, not-for-profit media outlet that uses content sourced from the academic and research community.

So yes, "if the above criteria were to be met - NO denier content would ever be presented. Rightly so. Save those comments for the conspiracy theory websites. Just accept your comments and evidence will have meet the standards The Conversation have put in place if you want to comment there.

it's true the theory of continental drift wasn't widely accepted when it was first proposed. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and over time that evidence was accumulated (in part to test the theory) and was eventually accepted. Just like climate science is now.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

log man said..

Dr Duck said..
Just to be clear, The Conversation is not advocating shutting down "free speech". It has just asked that comments meet the standard of discourse and level of evidence expected of academics. It turns out that there is very well laid out pathway to dispute the climate science literature. That is the pathway what all science adheres too: Disclose funding sources, declare conflicts of interest, conduct and write up a study, publish in a peer reviewed journal and civil, evidence based debate at meetings, replicate the findings etc. The process isn't perfect, but is always looking to improve itself. There wouldn't be a climate scientist around who wouldn't be happy to be proven wrong. Why haven't deniers taken this path to prove their point? In reality the evidence is overwhelming and from many different sources. If you are going to dispute that, well to paraphrase Bayes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So if your response to someone saying "we should act on the IPCC report" is "well, here is a photo of you on a yacht and I think I can see a plastic water bottle in the background" then your opinion is of such little value that it doesn't belong in the comments of The Conversation, and frankly probably shouldn't be propagated beyond the room you are sitting in. Thanks for coming to my TED talk :-)

i think we can end the discussion on that note.

Sorry Logman I don't think the standard of your discourse or the level of evidence you produce gives you a right to make that call.

i think dr. duck just summed up the situation

I guess then you can use the same standard to explain away as to why 911 Truth does not get exposure on the mainstream media?

Let us see - content sourced from the academic and research community.

Richard Gage the co- founder of the organisation 911 Truth along with his 3000 signatories are highly qualified in their academic field and have done countless hours of research in to their claims - but still the mainstream media censor them and very likely The Conversion do too.

Select to expand quote

Rupert said..

A primary three schoolkid blessed with a little common sense can easily determine that the earth is a globe, that is rotating and orbiting the sun, this has been proven, but still some idiots believe the Earth is flat. Why is that pete?

As a rule I do not believe in individual censorship. I do hands down believe that companies have obligations and deserve to fall into the category of being censored. In this instance I would happily vote to have Google be forced to change their video feed algorithm used on
U TUBE. This was designed to keep people watching for longer to boost advertising opportunity without any thought of the consequences. One example of why, it single handedly re-created the flat-earth society into a sizeable minority. This was a belief which had fallen by the way-side starting centuries back once science displaced religion as a better way of making sense of the world we live on.

Surprising shallow for a company of Google's talent pool.
Cheers
AP

Select to expand quote

Dr Duck said..
eventually accepted. Just like climate science is now.

You're still treating this as a black and white issue! There's still room for investigation and debate from the other perspective.

From the NASA website.
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia."

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. "

i.e. 97% of publishing scientists agree that it's extremely likely. (= 95% likely)


Anyway I can go with 95%. 5% is not much but it's still something, 97% of climate scientists can't be wrong! ( not that all 97% would have had the time to absorb how that 95% figure was derived) www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter8-1.pdf

There's a 5% chance of rain on wednesday, who's going to fall off the edge if it does rain?

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

Dr Duck said..
eventually accepted. Just like climate science is now.

Anyway I can go with 95%. 5% is not much but it's still something, 97% of climate scientists can't be wrong! ( not that all 97% would have had the time to absorb how that 95% figure was derived) www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter8-1.pdf

There's a 5% chance of rain on wednesday, who's going to fall off the edge if it does rain?

What is bizarre is the weight of opinion given to the outlier. If you take a bell curve and weight the outcome to those between the 25-75 quartiles that would be a big and very representative selection choice - how has the debate effected them so far.. where do they feel the science arrow is pointing??
Unfortunately the bulk of the money in the world hangs off the current energy structures and they, their investors, feel that they have enough of what it will take in the future to not have to worry about how they get there...
The momentum of change will on this issue just bust out.. the question is when....

One question I would like to know a definitive answer.. is there an ability to manufacturer something which (at an effective level) will capture sunlight and radiate it back into space on a level (size and price) equivalent to an individual buying solar panels? That would empower the individual, as most all solutions require government level movement - and are likely to get bigger (cost and requirements wise).

Cheers
AP

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice-albedo_feedback


Sea ice is a pretty good reflector. We've Lost 0.5 million square kilometres. Check the sums but I make it as everyone on the planet would need to keep 100m^2 of mirror polished up to compensate. Well maybe only 25 - 30 if you live on the equator. Galvanised iron roofs were probably pretty good but now we've got colorbond in various shades of drab.

www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/free-speech-social-media-violence.html

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice-albedo_feedback


Sea ice is a pretty good reflector. We've Lost 0.5 million square kilometres. Check the sums but I make it as everyone on the planet would need to keep 100m^2 of mirror polished up to compensate. Well maybe only 25 - 30 if you live on the equator. Galvanised iron roofs were probably pretty good but now we've got colorbond in various shades of drab.

Bet that graph would look a hell of alot less convincing if taken from 1920s.Anything can be proven on very short time scales.

Select to expand quote

Foghorn said..Bet that graph would look a hell of alot less convincing if taken from 1920s.Anything can be proven on very short time scales.

Yeah sure mate... Here is some pertinent data from 1958...
....and 1700....Still not convinced?

Select to expand quote

groucho said..

Foghorn said..Bet that graph would look a hell of alot less convincing if taken from 1920s.Anything can be proven on very short time scales.

Yeah sure mate... Here is some pertinent data from 1958...
....and 1700....Still not convinced?

I have asked the absent architect this question before but he declined to answer, maybe someone else can enlighten me.

Q. What is the baseline comparison model that enables two samples, one collected from an ice core in the Arctic to be collaborated by the second sample collected from an elevated position some 3397.00 mtrs above sea level on the side of an active volcano?

I'm no scientist but I'm guessing there would be a significantly higher concentration of several gasses (toxic or innocuous) in the immediate vicinity of a volcano when compared to the air quality of a Polar region.

Maybe I'm wrong but if I am, in the words of a certain red haired politician, "Please Explain", preferably not in scientific gobblygook but in words that even Sarah Hanson-Young could understand.

Select to expand quote

groucho said..

Foghorn said..Bet that graph would look a hell of alot less convincing if taken from 1920s.Anything can be proven on very short time scales.

Yeah sure mate... Here is some pertinent data from 1958...
....and 1700....Still not convinced?

Wow co2 concentration .
Thats not ice.

Select to expand quote

groucho said..

Foghorn said..Bet that graph would look a hell of alot less convincing if taken from 1920s.Anything can be proven on very short time scales.

Yeah sure mate... Here is some pertinent data from 1958...
....and 1700....Still not convinced?

Butchering graphs with 2 different data collection points - Thats exactly what that 'used car salesman' Mann did with his hockey stick graph ...

And also .... increasing co2 - so what .... more crops , more plantlife , greening of the planet not seen in decades .... were going round in circles .... you know long term co2 range of levels in the atmosphere ???? the fact they've been as high as 8000 ppm in the planets history - and lifeforms got through those phases ... and co2 was not tracking temps ....

Whoever drew the analogy of some non windsurfer walking upto AA and trying to teach him something (ie idiot / no place to do so etc etc ) ...

Its maybe more along the lines of detached observer wondering up asking AA what the fastest brand is ? .... And his answer would be ? .... obviously JP (even though he's not winning this year) .... because his pay check / salary / future career depends on him promoting JP .... and thats exactly the postion ipcc shills are in .... keep propping up the agenda to further your career / inclusion in the $$$ club / media circus / touring around giving 'performances ' based on dodgy graphs / cherry picked data / one eyed agenda - and not ever having the balls to query the status quo or stick your neck out and question wether the other 100 + variables might be having an effect .... If you want to draw more analogies ... Its the same pressure pro's are under when winning aloha classics where they blatently state - won on brand x production board - when close photo close ups show show Keiths sig on the back and different number of fricken fins , or the other usual story "its the prototype for next years model " .... and all them pro's a few years ago ALL on KT customs painted up like their sponsors boards .... same game ... oh yip - Im riding Brand pop -out in mast hi hookipa - they have to tow the line on brand speak as their future paypacket depends on it - and you might not have any idea on how to ride hookipa - but you can probably surmise some insight that maybe ? they're not on production boards / its all a bit of a game ... (nowadays its a bit different now everyones gone faster rockers - they probably ARE riding their own brand shapers boards ... but still ... )

There's a scientist I watched a long interview with ... He was a sea level specialist - He was working with the IPCC on a sea level report ... with other climate scientists not at all specialised in sea level science ... the other scientists produced a report and graph - and the sea level specialist said 'hey - you cant put that report out - its fraudulent and the data / models / conclusions are TOTALLY wrong and not as per my findings / input .... so ... IPCC published the report anyway - but took out the graph (as was probably totally fraud cherry picked data ) - RESULT - he quit his post and left the IPCC in protest .... thats the kind of **** thats happening !! ...

Select to expand quote

seabreezer said..
Its maybe more along the lines of detached observer wondering up asking AA what the fastest brand is ? .... And his answer would be ? .... obviously JP (even though he's not winning this year) .... because his pay check / salary / future career depends on him promoting JP .... and thats exactly the postion ipcc shills are in .... keep propping up the agenda to further your career / inclusion in the $$$ club / media circus / touring around giving 'performances ' based on dodgy graphs / cherry picked data / one eyed agenda - and not ever having the balls to query the status quo or stick your neck out and question wether the other 100 + variables might be having an effect .... If you want to draw more analogies ... Its the same pressure pro's are under when winning aloha classics where they blatently state - won on brand x production board - when close photo close ups show show Keiths sig on the back and different number of fricken fins , or the other usual story "its the prototype for next years model " .... and all them pro's a few years ago ALL on KT customs painted up like their sponsors boards .... same game ... oh yip - Im riding Brand pop -out in mast hi hookipa - they have to tow the line on brand speak as their future paypacket depends on it - and you might not have any idea on how to ride hookipa - but you can probably surmise some insight that maybe ? they're not on production boards / its all a bit of a game ... (nowadays its a bit different now everyones gone faster rockers - they probably ARE riding their own brand shapers boards ... but still ... )

Science is not about opinions, it's evidence-based.
I thought Dr Duck addressed this in his excellent post a few days ago in this thread - worth repeating again;

Select to expand quote

seabreezer said..
Whoever drew the analogy of some non windsurfer walking upto AA and trying to teach him something (ie idiot / no place to do so etc etc ) ...

Its maybe more along the lines of detached observer wondering up asking AA what the fastest brand is ? .... And his answer would be ? .... obviously JP (even though he's not winning this year) .... because his pay check / salary / future career depends on him promoting JP .... and thats exactly the postion ipcc shills are in .... keep propping up the agenda to further your career / inclusion in the $$$ club / media circus / touring around giving 'performances ' based on dodgy graphs / cherry picked data / one eyed agenda - and not ever having the balls to query the status quo or stick your neck out and question wether the other 100 + variables might be having an effect .... If you want to draw more analogies ... Its the same pressure pro's are under when winning aloha classics where they blatently state - won on brand x production board - when close photo close ups show show Keiths sig on the back and different number of fricken fins , or the other usual story "its the prototype for next years model " .... and all them pro's a few years ago ALL on KT customs painted up like their sponsors boards .... same game ... oh yip - Im riding Brand pop -out in mast hi hookipa - they have to tow the line on brand speak as their future paypacket depends on it - and you might not have any idea on how to ride hookipa - but you can probably surmise some insight that maybe ? they're not on production boards / its all a bit of a game ... (nowadays its a bit different now everyones gone faster rockers - they probably ARE riding their own brand shapers boards ... but still ... )

There's a scientist I watched a long interview with ... He was a sea level specialist - He was working with the IPCC on a sea level report ... with other climate scientists not at all specialised in sea level science ... the other scientists produced a report and graph - and the sea level specialist said 'hey - you cant put that report out - its fraudulent and the data / models / conclusions are TOTALLY wrong and not as per my findings / input .... so ... IPCC published the report anyway - but took out the graph (as was probably totally fraud cherry picked data ) - RESULT - he quit his post and left the IPCC in protest .... thats the kind of **** thats happening !! ...

Yes 50+ yrs experience i believe on sea levels.
Some of the scientists on that report were at graduate level from Austria ,which doesn't have much ocean .

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..
exactly, that's why I'm saying democracy is flawed.

Yes a benevolent dictatorship would be ideal, like the ones in fairytales such as Cinderella or Camelot. Back to the real world now, how well is the environment looked after in countries that are not democratic, better or worse than those countires where the government is accountable to the population.

Evidence is great

I posted evidence from the BoM to support my view that cyclones have not increased in frequency or intensity and alarmists lost their marbles

The chief scientist of Australia has clearly stated that there is no empirical evidence to support the alarmists view on global warming

The chief scientist also clearly stated that reducing Australia's co2 emissions to zero would have zero impact on global warming.

The climate is changing, it has for billions of years and will continue for billions more. Humans did not start that, humans can not stop that.

I think Decrepit has a valid point. I read this article last month from the creator of 8Chan who was previously an advocate for free speech. The issue with the internet is that we (falsely) assume that everybody is a good actor, and the best ideas come from open discussion. I think we are/will see much more censorship than we ever imagined.

www.nytimes.com/2019/08/04/technology/8chan-shooting-manifesto.html

Select to expand quote

seabreezer said..

groucho said..

Foghorn said..Bet that graph would look a hell of alot less convincing if taken from 1920s.Anything can be proven on very short time scales.

Yeah sure mate... Here is some pertinent data from 1958...
....and 1700....Still not convinced?

Butchering graphs with 2 different data collection points - Thats exactly what that 'used car salesman' Mann did with his hockey stick graph ...

And also .... increasing co2 - so what .... more crops , more plantlife , greening of the planet not seen in decades .... were going round in circles .... you know long term co2 range of levels in the atmosphere ???? the fact they've been as high as 8000 ppm in the planets history - and lifeforms got through those phases ... and co2 was not tracking temps ....

1,000 - 2,000 ppm: level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air. 2,000 - 5,000 ppm: level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present

Looks like we've got a few years ahead without walking around drowsy, with headaches......

Seems like 400 ppm increases some people's anxiety .

Seems like 400 ppm increases some people's anxiety .