MovieChat Forums > Tonyharrison
Tonyharrison (175)
Posts
"Jordan Peterson is a good role model for young men." Agree or disagree?
Which obscure actor do you think deserved an Oscar for their performance?
A question for HarveyManFredSin and any other liberals.
Which lines from movies made you laugh out loud?
If you were on death row, what would you want for your last meal?
"Having a wedding is a waste of time and money." Agree or disagree?
Do you agree or disagree with the Nordic model for prostitution?
Should Bosnia's "rape hotel" be shut down?
Did this movie disturb you as a child?
What was your favourite scene?
View all posts >
Replies
He definitely comes across as awkward, kind of like Napoleon Dynamite!
Like I said before (https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/64bdd94503162c637607a648/Climate-Change-Realistic-Solutions?reply=64d2374348b6684f48f6792e), you need to start citing some peer reviewed research. I'm not seeing that on this thread.
(but I'm happy to give Stuart Harris the benefit of doubt and assume that the peer review process was conducted properly for this article), and 5) now his article has just been published, it will be interesting to see how it will be critically evaluated in other journals over the next 12 to 24 months. Will his research establish a new theory that climate change is in fact primarily or exclusively caused by solar radiation? Or will his article join that body of literature that rejects anthropogenic climate, estimated to account for no more than three percent of climate scientists? I'm happy to revisit this thread then and see what the updates will be.
On the other hand, John Stossel's video is an absolute joke. Judith Curry hasn't published any peer reviewed research since she quit academia in the mid-2000s (https://www.desmog.com/judith-curry/). I also find it hard to believe her claim in this video that the peer reviewed journals will stonewall you if you don't accept the prevailing theory of climate change as opposed to considering your submission for its individual merits (see point 2 about Stuart Harris). It's far-fetched for her to claim that it was easier to get rich through her past career in academia when she collects $400 an hour in consultation fees from fossil fuel companies. Where John Stossel really shoots himself in the foot is how he mentions Climategate almost 14 years later when researchers were cleared of any fraudulent conduct within a matter of months (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climategate-scientist-cleared-in-inquiry-again/).
Stuart A Harris' article raises an important question that peer reviewed research has been answering for decades: What causes climate change, changes in human activity or changes in solar radiation? One may assume the majority of climate scientists agree that climate change shares a causal correlation between both, but the former is a greater cause than the latter. Indeed Tom Wigley published his findings in 1988: "The potential climatic effects of cyclic, radius-related irradiance changes are evaluated giving a range of global-mean temperature fluctuations of 0.2–0.3°C over the past 300 years. For the past 10,000 years, the recent glacial chronologies of Röthlisberger (1986) are compared with the 14C anomaly curve of Stuiver et al. (1986). The agreement between times of major 14C anomaly and times of globally-advanced glaciers (i.e. cool summers) is shown to be statistically significant. The implied reduction of solar irradiance during times of maximum century-time-scale 14C anomaly such as the Maunder Minimum is shown to be around 6 Wn-2, equivalent to a net radiative forcing change of about 1 Wm-2 at the top of the troposphere. If another major 14C anomaly began early in the 21st century, the associated solar perturbation would be of considerable importance, but still insufficient to fully offset the projected warming due to future greenhouse gas concentration increases." (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-3011-7_13)
But back to Stuart Harris' findings: 1) his article was published eight days ago (3 August 2023), 2) one would expect more than eight sources in his bold assumption, "There seems to be no connection between carbon dioxide and the temperature of the Earth", 3) he does cite evidence to support his findings such as, for example, a case study on the impact of deforestation in Costa Rica but it will be interesting to see how it stacks up against other case studies, 4) on a side note, MDPI has been accused of predatory publishing [cont]
activity and global temperatures is inaccurate, we can say that climate science is settled with regard to anthropogenic climate change. After all, that's what NASA reminds us (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/).
or disprove its existence. But even then scientists agree that the concept is conjecture. For example, astrophysicists agree that to date, the multiverse remains neither proven nor disproven.
I absolutely agree that scientists (and researchers in any field) need to revaluate research and postulate new ideas so as to improve their disciplines. But sadly when a new theory is achieved (and the science is settled), researchers find their work (and often themselves) under attack by outsiders with ulterior motives. For example, creationists accused Charles Darwin of doing the work of Satan whereas in Nazi Germany, quantum physics was declared "Jewish physics". Even in the 21st century there are unscientific claims that contradict germ theory (https://www.bu.edu/hic/2021/01/04/5g-doesnt-cause-covid-19-but-the-rumor-it-does-spread-like-a-virus/). In the same vein, the fossil fuel industry has attempted to undermine research into climate change for more than four decades (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing). While climate change denial has failed to undermine the integrity of climatology as a discipline, the same cannot be said about the safety of climatologists themselves. In response to the so-called "Climategate" farce, Prof Phil Jones was cleared of any wrongdoing but still received death threats (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-scientist-relieved-vindicated).
Given that global temperatures have been recorded since 1880 (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures#:~:text=Global%20temperature%20records%20start%20around,planet%20prior%20to%20that%20time.), climate change is not something we can say remains neither proven nor disproven (as opposed to the multiverse). Until there is some ground-breaking peer reviewed publication which works out this whole time, climatologists' methodology in finding a causality in increases in human
Firstly I applaud you for referencing NASA, a reliable authority on climate change. I've seen too many posts referencing authors, organisations and publications that have no academic credentials in the field of climatology. But it's always encouraging when I see someone posting a link that ends with .edu or .gov as either the author(s) are authorities on climate change themselves or can be assumed to be held to professional standards to ensure that they are accurately referencing reliable authorities. But regarding the two links you posted from NASA, I don't think the purpose of the studies was to rule out a causal relation between climate change and natural disasters or extreme weather events; it's a given that natural disasters and extreme weather events have always occurred but rather research tells as that their frequency and severity are worsening due to climate change (https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/november/bushfires-linked-climate-change).
Regarding your point about the concept of four humours in medicine, I think (by modern definition) it has always been a pseudoscience as there was never any reliable methodology of collecting empirical evidence about the four humours in the first place. On the other hand in the field of medicine germ theory had replaced miasma theory by the time Louis Pasteur published his findings. Rather (before Pasteur) we should call them competing hypotheses, not theories, for the reason that scientific methodology involves you and your fellow researchers doing everything you can to rule out a hypothesis through quantitative and qualitative analysis. If your hypothesis stands this test, then it becomes a theory. With the advances in microbiology in the 19th century, miasma theory was discredited and to this day, germ theory remains uncontested in field of medicine. There are some concepts which might remain conjecture (as opposed to a hypothesis to begin with) in that there is not enough evidence to either prove [cont
So you don't want to tell me where you read the earth can simply clean itself?
Right so I'm Batfleck's sock puppet now am I? (https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/64bdd94503162c637607a648/Climate-Change-Realistic-Solutions?reply=64d103ca6e00f82c64355d0a) Never mind the fact that we appear to live in different countries (note how we use different standardisations of English spelling) and different time zones. Never mind that we otherwise post on different forums. Because we both keep on pointing out that you need to start referencing reliable (i.e. peer reviewed) sources that must make me a sock puppet. If I'm a sock puppet then Batfleck has gone to a great deal of time and trouble to create me!
But back to finding peer reviewed sources, here let me show you how it's done...
1) I found this one article titled, 'Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature', here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966.
2) Now I didn't just take the title's word for it. I had to check the journal's credentials. Let's see, it's called <i>Environmental Research Letters</i>. Right, so I had to check the relevant link on their website: https://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/journals/environmental-research-letters/about-environmental-research-letters/#why-publish-in-environmental-research-letters
3) And here's what I found: "High standards: our professional in-house editors manage the peer review process, and alongside our Editorial Board ensure standards are maintained at a high level and customer service is prioritized."
Bob's your uncle!
Regarding your above post, I don't know where your read how the earth can simply clean itself. I suspect that it wasn't in a peer reviewed publication. But I'll tell you what. If you provide the link, I'll take you through the process again.
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/64bdd94503162c637607a648/Climate-Change-Realistic-Solutions?reply=64cfbae9373e8330470320be
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/64bdd94503162c637607a648/Climate-Change-Realistic-Solutions?reply=64d051676e00f82c64355895
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/64bdd94503162c637607a648/Climate-Change-Realistic-Solutions?reply=64cf97bc373e833047031fab
View all replies >