Article on Flight Shaming and Carbon Emission
12-13-2019 | 08:51 AM
#161
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,154
Likes: 192
Oh dear. Pointing out the reliability of your source is not a logical fallacy. It is called evaluating source material. In the future you should really use the CRAAP method to evaluate the quality of the information you are sharing. I can't believe I'm wasting my time on this but maybe it will help some other wayward soul.
Currency - the website Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C. shows that it was updated in March of 2018. Well that is a pretty good start. Until we look into his sources which include 2 books from the 1970s and some mythical science foundation papers I could not find.
Reliability - Most of the information on Cliff's website is opinion without stating sources. He makes claims without any evidence or sources listed. He has a complete section dedicated to climate change and how it is not real showing a definite bias towards this thinking.
Authority - So we know this was composed by Cliff Harris and Randy Mann. What we don't know is anything about their credentials. His biggest achievement seems to be "Climatologist Cliff Harris has been often rated as one of the top ten climatologists in the world for nearly 4 decades." Often rated by whom? His aunt? He does not show that he has any college degree, only stating that he has "over 300 credits from several different universities”. There is also no sponsor or publisher of the website besides Mr. Harris's own company. He has never been published in any sort of scientific paper let alone a peer reviewed journal but he did author "Weather and Bible Prophecy" with Randy Mann. https://www.amazon.com/Weather-Bible.../dp/B00VGS3LN8. Apparently this includes topics such as:
- How God is using the weather to get our attention.
- When are the major climate and cultural cycles colliding?
- What are the futures prophecies based on the Bible?
- How did the weather influence major events in the Bible?
- How the weather could play a role in the "End Times."
- What will the "New Jerusalem" be like?
Accuracy - The information is clearly biased and is not supported by any concrete evidence. He did provide sources for his chart which were:
"Climate and the Affairs of Men" by Dr. Iben Browing.
"Climate...The Key to Understanding Business Cycles...The Raymond H. Wheeler Papers. By Michael Zahorchak
Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois.
Two of those sources are books and I could not find any evidence of Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois. His "evidence" is based on books, not scientific research. The first author
"Iben Browning (January 9, 1918 – July 18, 1991) was an American business consultant, author, and "self-proclaimed climatologist."[1]: p. 2 He is most notable for having made various failed predictions of disasters involving climate, volcanoes, earthquakes, and government collapse.[2]: p. 11"
[1]Farley, John E. Earthquake Fears, Predictions, and Preparations in Mid-America. Southern Illinois University Press.
[2]Spence, William; Herrmann, Robert B.; Johnston, Arch C. & Reagor, Glen (1993), "Responses to Iben Browning's Prediction of a 1990 New Madrid, Missouri, Earthquake" (PDF), U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1083.
The second author wrote books on business and investing. I couldn't find anything more about this author. Needless to say not great sources.
The information was not peer reviewed, He incorrectly calls the IPCC the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control. The chart does not even have a scale on the Y-axis and the few temperatures listed are in Fahrenheit not the scientific standard of Celsius.
Purpose - The website is set up to try and sell not only advertising (advertisers click here) but also "Daily commodity and long range weather service for only $11.95/month!" Additionally you can contact them if you are an attorney and have them present "forensic meteorology" by using his 100 scrapbooks. All that goes to show his information is not for scientific purposes but rather to make money.
All in all if you just took two minutes to look into the quality of the information you are trying to spread you would save us all a lot of time and even prevent the spread of horrible misinformation. Unfortunately I know that is not what your intentions are. I know this will fall on deaf ears with you but I hope that if anyone else on this forum was going to believe the drivel you have presented this will make them think twice and maybe just maybe they will look into the glut of real scientific papers themselves. Or you know, they could just take the easy way out and believe the 97% of scientist and over 200 international scientific organizations that believe that humans are causing a severe impact on our climate.
Currency - the website Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C. shows that it was updated in March of 2018. Well that is a pretty good start. Until we look into his sources which include 2 books from the 1970s and some mythical science foundation papers I could not find.
Reliability - Most of the information on Cliff's website is opinion without stating sources. He makes claims without any evidence or sources listed. He has a complete section dedicated to climate change and how it is not real showing a definite bias towards this thinking.
Authority - So we know this was composed by Cliff Harris and Randy Mann. What we don't know is anything about their credentials. His biggest achievement seems to be "Climatologist Cliff Harris has been often rated as one of the top ten climatologists in the world for nearly 4 decades." Often rated by whom? His aunt? He does not show that he has any college degree, only stating that he has "over 300 credits from several different universities”. There is also no sponsor or publisher of the website besides Mr. Harris's own company. He has never been published in any sort of scientific paper let alone a peer reviewed journal but he did author "Weather and Bible Prophecy" with Randy Mann. https://www.amazon.com/Weather-Bible.../dp/B00VGS3LN8. Apparently this includes topics such as:
- How God is using the weather to get our attention.
- When are the major climate and cultural cycles colliding?
- What are the futures prophecies based on the Bible?
- How did the weather influence major events in the Bible?
- How the weather could play a role in the "End Times."
- What will the "New Jerusalem" be like?
Accuracy - The information is clearly biased and is not supported by any concrete evidence. He did provide sources for his chart which were:
"Climate and the Affairs of Men" by Dr. Iben Browing.
"Climate...The Key to Understanding Business Cycles...The Raymond H. Wheeler Papers. By Michael Zahorchak
Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois.
Two of those sources are books and I could not find any evidence of Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois. His "evidence" is based on books, not scientific research. The first author
"Iben Browning (January 9, 1918 – July 18, 1991) was an American business consultant, author, and "self-proclaimed climatologist."[1]: p. 2 He is most notable for having made various failed predictions of disasters involving climate, volcanoes, earthquakes, and government collapse.[2]: p. 11"
[1]Farley, John E. Earthquake Fears, Predictions, and Preparations in Mid-America. Southern Illinois University Press.
[2]Spence, William; Herrmann, Robert B.; Johnston, Arch C. & Reagor, Glen (1993), "Responses to Iben Browning's Prediction of a 1990 New Madrid, Missouri, Earthquake" (PDF), U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1083.
The second author wrote books on business and investing. I couldn't find anything more about this author. Needless to say not great sources.
The information was not peer reviewed, He incorrectly calls the IPCC the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control. The chart does not even have a scale on the Y-axis and the few temperatures listed are in Fahrenheit not the scientific standard of Celsius.
Purpose - The website is set up to try and sell not only advertising (advertisers click here) but also "Daily commodity and long range weather service for only $11.95/month!" Additionally you can contact them if you are an attorney and have them present "forensic meteorology" by using his 100 scrapbooks. All that goes to show his information is not for scientific purposes but rather to make money.
All in all if you just took two minutes to look into the quality of the information you are trying to spread you would save us all a lot of time and even prevent the spread of horrible misinformation. Unfortunately I know that is not what your intentions are. I know this will fall on deaf ears with you but I hope that if anyone else on this forum was going to believe the drivel you have presented this will make them think twice and maybe just maybe they will look into the glut of real scientific papers themselves. Or you know, they could just take the easy way out and believe the 97% of scientist and over 200 international scientific organizations that believe that humans are causing a severe impact on our climate.
Unfortunately I have resigned myself to the likelihood that mankind will do nothing to reduce its addition of gigatons of green house gasses to the atmosphere until Nature steps in and makes us... in Her harsh way of doing so.
Most likely Her methods will dwarf, by many factors, the hardships involved in us reducing our output voluntarily.
I will just add 2 quotes from Dr. Richard Feynman that are relevant to most of life's activities, but this area in particular.
"..for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled"
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool"
12-13-2019 | 09:37 AM
#162
Banned
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 0
12-13-2019 | 12:06 PM
#163
Banned
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
absolutely shameful.
12-13-2019 | 02:05 PM
#164
Banned
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 0
Please, get over yourself. Nothing that comes out of her mouth is anything from her. She spouts off whatever her handlers put in front of her and write for her. That sailing stunt she did should have been enough proof that this is all just theatrics. But then there are useful idiots that keep enabling so I’m not surprised. You’re the one taking advantage of a mentally deficient child.
12-13-2019 | 02:12 PM
#165
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 12,533
Likes: 1,129
Please, get over yourself. Nothing that comes out of her mouth is anything from her. She spouts off whatever her handlers put in front of her and write for her. That sailing stunt she did should have been enough proof that this is all just theatrics. But then there are useful idiots that keep enabling so I’m not surprised. You’re the one taking advantage of a mentally deficient child.
12-13-2019 | 02:19 PM
#166
Banned
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
All I said is that spewing conspiracy theories about a teenage girl while throwing senseless pejoratives at her, simply because of a difference in perspective, is a shameful and disgusting thing to do. How am I taking advantage of her?
You should try and take off the tinfoil hat sometime and come back to reality. The fact that a person as deluded as you is an airline pilot with the lives of people in your hands is concerning to say the least.
You should try and take off the tinfoil hat sometime and come back to reality. The fact that a person as deluded as you is an airline pilot with the lives of people in your hands is concerning to say the least.
12-15-2019 | 02:00 PM
#168
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,625
Likes: 0
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals 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."
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
My question for all you deniers is, if this was a different topic would you disagree with a 97% consensus of educated specialists?
If 97 out of 100 doctor's agreed on medical treatment would you argue that 3 of them said that oatmeal would cure your cancer?
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
My question for all you deniers is, if this was a different topic would you disagree with a 97% consensus of educated specialists?
If 97 out of 100 doctor's agreed on medical treatment would you argue that 3 of them said that oatmeal would cure your cancer?
12-15-2019 | 02:54 PM
#169
Line Holder
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 866
Likes: 37
From: Guppy
Go read any number of the papers. Oreskes 2004, Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al. 2010, Cook 2014. They all reached the same conclusion using slightly different methodologies. It's all peer-reviewed, transparent and falsifiable, the way science should be. And in stark contrast to the skeptic blogosphere.
And you want climate scientists talking about climate change, not just any scientist. That's how you wind up with the Oregon petition that was a laughing stock.
12-16-2019 | 03:48 AM
#170
On Reserve
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
That being said you guys really need to learn to do basic research. The source I provided listed every scientific paper they used as a source (like good science does) and you could have read those source papers to answer the accusation you are making. Every paper will have an explanation of their process including how many were questioned and what they responded. In this case it's not how many were questioned as it wasn't a poll. It was a review of peer reviewed papers on climate and the positions that were presented in those papers.
"...examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
That's just excerpts from two of the 5 sources listed. The papers themselves go into much more detail of their process. Please please please, every skeptic of climate change in here, learn how to do basic research and read a standard scientific study. It will serve you for the rest of your life.
