Great Barrier Reef "cooked" to death

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Deadly serious.

Based on your extensive domination on this and other like threads you have seen and heard all of the arguments about AGW as a science, a religion, and the ends. You also are very aware of the excesses in the AGW community. So then stop with the faux innocence. BTW, my last comment on the original post was directed to you and lake-effect.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

What is most problematic about AGW is there is an agenda, a religion, and a sense that the ends justify the means for the sake of our planet.

This translates into a virulent mix of science, politics, and environmentalism where the average guy has the sense there is no one to trust. The "data," the truth, becomes lost in the fog of competing agendas.

Others have responded already, but let me just ask the following:

AGW is a big, important topic; it's involved lots of the best specialists, and institutions, and they have been worried about this for approaching 20 years, and their conclusion hasn't substantially changed. Many many papers, a lot of peer review, several global meetings. Very few of the experts have serious doubts or misgivings about the core findings, though there's lots of discussion around the future effects. Is that not sufficient rigour to allay the concern that the main conclusion from the scientists themselves is questionable or scientifically flawed?

The process and conclusions have been reviewed and vetted by many other scientific communities, bodies and institutions, and they have expressed confidence in the employed methodologies and the scientific validity of the conclusions. Not ONE scientific body or institution has asserted that the findings are incorrect, unscientific, or seriously flawed. Does this reassure you that the actual scientific findings are valid and not materially tainted by an agenda?

Of course there's a fog of bias in the advocacy... but it is possible to see past that, if one chooses to.

Let's face it - if the scientific finding of AGW is truly flawed, then the scientific process itself is seriously flawed, and we're f#@ked... we might as well seek out soothsayers and oracles, and put our faith there instead.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Others have responded already, but let me just ask the following:

AGW is a big, important topic; it's involved lots of the best specialists, and institutions, and they have been worried about this for approaching 20 years, and their conclusion hasn't substantially changed. Many many papers, a lot of peer review, several global meetings. Very few of the experts have serious doubts or misgivings about the core findings, though there's lots of discussion around the future effects. Is that not sufficient rigour to allay the concern that the main conclusion from the scientists themselves is questionable or scientifically flawed?

The process and conclusions have been reviewed and vetted by many other scientific communities, bodies and institutions, and they have expressed confidence in the employed methodologies and the scientific validity of the conclusions. Not ONE scientific body or institution has asserted that the findings are incorrect, unscientific, or seriously flawed. Does this reassure you that the actual scientific findings are valid and not materially tainted by an agenda?

Of course there's a fog of bias in the advocacy... but it is possible to see past that, if one chooses to.

Let's face it - if the scientific finding of AGW is truly flawed, then the scientific process itself is seriously flawed, and we're f#@ked... we might as well seek out soothsayers and oracles, and put our faith there instead.

Sorry, you and Jackdale locally here on CF, and others are so invested that you cannot even look at or consider data and evidence that is contrary to the AGW meme. You argue, cloud, and obfuscate each and every point that is made contrary to AGW. Consider that there are real scientists that have data and good reasons to disagree, sorry.

When you boil down past your committees, bodies, and institutions, there are a just handful of scientists that have actually had hands on and have done the work. Institutions are actually not real scientists they are business entities. And by the way science has not always got it right on the short haul so I will wait and see at great risk to the planet (sarc).

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Based on your extensive domination on this and other like threads you have seen and heard all of the arguments about AGW as a science, a religion, and the ends. You also are very aware of the excesses in the AGW community. So then stop with the faux innocence. BTW, my last comment on the original post was directed to you and lake-effect.

Lots of memes, no evidence.

You are not screwed up, you are being screwed.

I was reminded of this video earlier today, its is appropriate.

https://youtu.be/rsL6mKxtOlQ

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Consider that there are real scientists that have data and good reasons to disagree, sorry.

Who are these "real" scientists?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Sorry, you and Jackdale locally here on CF, and others are so invested that you cannot even look at or consider data and evidence that is contrary to the AGW meme. You argue, cloud, and obfuscate each and every point that is made contrary to AGW. Consider that there are real scientists that have data and good reasons to disagree, sorry.

Sure it's not 100% unanimous, but if there was a real serious disagreement with the conclusion, you'd see it reflected in the scientific community, wouldn't you? There's a smattering of countering assertions, going in all sorts of different directions, often contradicting each other. There is no serious counter-theory or demonstrated flaw that hangs together and has substantial support. Unless you've seen something that I haven't.

I happen to put more faith in the science and its practitioners; it's messy and not always unanimous, but it's the best we've got. What I have reviewed hangs together; I haven't myself seen anything that indicates a substantial flaw. I question the judgement of those who think that a few hours on a skeptic site has equipped them to judge it seriously flawed.

When you boil down past your committees, bodies, and institutions, there are a just handful of scientists that have actually had hands on and have done the work. Institutions are actually not real scientists they are business entities. And by the way science has not always got it right on the short haul so I will wait and see at great risk to the planet (sarc).

Oh c'mon. More than a handfull. Climate is kind of big; tons of data, years of analysis, modeling, papers, meetings, peer reviews. The Royal Society is a business entity? Now you are playing for laughs, aren't you? And 20 years isn't exactly a short haul.

You're scrambling for excuses to justify a belief.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh c'mon. More than a handfull. Climate is kind of big; tons of data, years of analysis, papers, meetings, peer reviews. The Royal Society is a business entity? Now you are playing for laughs, aren't you? And 20 years isn't exactly a short haul.

You're scrambling for excuses to justify a belief.

OK then, drill down into the Royal Society and count the number of heads that do direct hard core research on AGW. No fair counting the bit players.

[chala]

Originally Posted by weavis

Why a Swiss flag, just an expression of neutrality?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

OK then, drill down into the Royal Society and count the number of heads that do direct hard core research on AGW. No fair counting the bit players.

Is this your way of conceding that institutions aren't business entities?

The point: many scientific institutions, bodies, organizations have reviewed the AGW findings and endorsed them. Not ONE has stated that they are wrong or seriously flawed in process or methodology. The Royal Society, among many other, have endorsed the finding of climate change and the urgency of the problem. As an organization of practicing scientists, they're eminently qualified to review and comment on scientific work, are they not? Even if they aren't all climate scientists.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Sorry, you and Jackdale locally here on CF, and others are so invested that you cannot even look at or consider data and evidence that is contrary to the AGW meme. You argue, cloud, and obfuscate each and every point that is made contrary to AGW. Consider that there are real scientists that have data and good reasons to disagree, sorry.

When you boil down past your committees, bodies, and institutions, there are a just handful of scientists that have actually had hands on and have done the work. Institutions are actually not real scientists they are business entities. And by the way science has not always got it right on the short haul so I will wait and see at great risk to the planet (sarc).

Some people won't let the facts stand in the way of a good argument. The final outcome is pretty clear at this point though.

[kmacdonald]

A director of a research institute once told me that a study will show whatever the person paying for it wants it to show. The validity of data is never challenged in a review, only the process. Cherry picking is rampant in any study as a result.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Based on your extensive domination on this and other like threads you have seen and heard all of the arguments about AGW as a science, a religion, and the ends. You also are very aware of the excesses in the AGW community. So then stop with the faux innocence. BTW, my last comment on the original post was directed to you and lake-effect.

he simply asked "evidence of your assertion expressed in your first sentence". Then you want to go into a rant about him being on like threads, avoiding showing evidence. Why is that?

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

he simply asked "evidence of your assertion expressed in your first sentence". Then you want to go into a rant about him being on like threads, avoiding showing evidence. Why is that?

He already knows where the data is and is just "trolling."

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

He already knows where the data is and is just "trolling."

Hey...nice shirt...Teflon? Nothing seems to stick to it.
You see...I'd really like to see the scientific evidence on both sides. But what I get from you and kmacdonold is deflection. "The facts were stated else where" or my favorite, "A director of a research institute". These are not facts.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

A director of a research institute once told me that a study will show whatever the person paying for it wants it to show. The validity of data is never challenged in a review, only the process. Cherry picking is rampant in any study as a result.

I wonder how much it cost to get all of these guys on board.