Agenda Driven Research is the Problem.... Great Barrier Reef Recovered 80%

[Billy_Bob]

Now this is telling. Several papers and quality control checks show that many of the recent papers on the Great Barrier Reef exaggerated the damage by a factor of ten. Independent scientists did their own research and found the GBR to be over 80% healed from a minor uptick in water temp, which has now fallen below the 30 year average.

"Marine scientist Peter Ridd has begun a speaking tour in Queensland calling for a new body to check the quality of reef research."

And the real scientists want to know why there was no peer review on the work done... The days of logical fallacy and trusting the "experts" are over. Now there is a push to check everything that comes from grants, special interests, and government financing.

This should have been called for long ago...

Surprise! The Great Barrier Reef is Not Dying from Global Warming

 

[Billy_Bob]

And this is why appeals to authority are a logical fallacy...

Trust no one and Verify.... This is how science should operate..

 

[Matted Joybeard]

Lol, no appeal to authority with BIG AG DR RIGG.

 

[Confounding]

Trust no one


This is how science should operate..

Good luck with that goofball.

 

[SSDD]

Trust no one


This is how science should operate..

Good luck with that goofball.

It may come as a surprise to you...but in every field of science except climate science, that is how it operates...only climate science holds up "consensus" as if that were evidence of anything other than groupthink. Scientists are supposed to be the most skeptical people on the planet, and in most fields they are...except...that is for climate science where there is "consensus".

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lol, no appeal to authority with BIG AG DR RIGG.

Trust no one


This is how science should operate..

Good luck with that goofball.

And right out of the gate.... APPEALS TO AUTHORITY... and disparagement of those fact checking the work and papers printed by agenda driven hacks... You two morons do not like to have your gods questioned... they must be believed... Its kind of like the METOO movement, they should be checked/prosecuted only if they do not conform to the approved agenda...

 

[Confounding]

It may come as a surprise to you

It really changes the optics when one actually understands what a consensus is and what it does/doesn't mean.

 

[Confounding]

APPEALS TO AUTHORITY

Do you not understand why climate scientists the world over are the authority when it comes to our current understanding of the climate?

 

[SSDD]

It may come as a surprise to you

It really changes the optics when one actually understands what a consensus is and what it does/doesn't mean.

Words have meaning...show me a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis and you have the most meager beginnings of the sort of evidence that should exist in order to even begin convincing real scientists that there is something to agree on.. At least one paper being published in which the warming we are supposed to be causing has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses might be helpful as well.

As neither of those most basic pieces of evidence required to claim any sort of problem exist...exactly what is this fake "consensus" built upon?

 

[SSDD]

APPEALS TO AUTHORITY

Do you not understand why climate scientists the world over are the authority when it comes to our current understanding of the climate?

You keep making claims that the evidence simply don't bear out..you have made the claim that climatologists are expanding the boundaries of what we understand about the climate more than once...

I asked for an example or two...can you provide any or not?

 

[Confounding]

It may come as a surprise to you

It really changes the optics when one actually understands what a consensus is and what it does/doesn't mean.

Words have meaning

Yes they do. A consensus is simply a general agreement. It means most scientists have come to a similar conclusion upon examination of the evidence. It's not an insulated cult view.

I want you to tell me straightforwardly that there is no evidence to support what scientists are saying about AGW. None of your mitigating weasel talk please. I want you to say forwardly "Scientists have no evidence to support their claims."

 

[daveman]

Sheesh, Confounding, it looks like it's completely impossible for you to be shamed for such blatant hero-worship.

 

[daveman]

It may come as a surprise to you

It really changes the optics when one actually understands what a consensus is and what it does/doesn't mean.

Words have meaning

Yes they do. A consensus is simply a general agreement. It means most scientists have come to a similar conclusion upon examination of the evidence. It's not an insulated cult view.

I want you to tell me straightforwardly that there is no evidence to support what scientists are saying about AGW. None of your mitigating weasel talk please. I want you to say forwardly "Scientists have no evidence to support their claims."

Oh, they have evidence. The problem comes in when it's shown to be distorted and exaggerated...as in the OP.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Now this is telling. Several papers and quality control checks show that many of the recent papers on the Great Barrier Reef exaggerated the damage by a factor of ten. Independent scientists did their own research and found the GBR to be over 80% healed from a minor uptick in water temp, which has now fallen below the 30 year average.

"Marine scientist Peter Ridd has begun a speaking tour in Queensland calling for a new body to check the quality of reef research."

And the real scientists want to know why there was no peer review on the work done... The days of logical fallacy and trusting the "experts" are over. Now there is a push to check everything that comes from grants, special interests, and government financing.

This should have been called for long ago...

Surprise! The Great Barrier Reef is Not Dying from Global Warming

In other words, the ocean is warming long term,which will harm the coral reefs. It ahowed a short term cooling, allowing recovery. This doesnt debunk anything. Stop copy pasting shit from idiot bloggers that you don't understand.

 

[Confounding]

You keep making claims that the evidence simply don't bear out..you have made the claim that climatologists are expanding the boundaries of what we understand about the climate more than once...

I asked for an example or two...can you provide any or not?

I'll reiterate because you failed to answer.

Do you not understand why climate scientists the world over are the authority when it comes to understanding the climate?

 

[Confounding]

Sheesh, Confounding, it looks like it's completely impossible for you to be shamed for such blatant hero-worship.

You are correct that I will not feel shame for respecting the views of the people that know more about this than anybody else.

 

[SSDD]

It may come as a surprise to you

It really changes the optics when one actually understands what a consensus is and what it does/doesn't mean.

Words have meaning

Yes they do. A consensus is simply a general agreement. It means most scientists have come to a similar conclusion upon examination of the evidence. It's not an insulated cult view.

I want you to tell me straightforwardly that there is no evidence to support what scientists are saying about AGW. None of your mitigating weasel talk please. I want you to say forwardly "Scientists have no evidence to support their claims."

And in order for scientists to reach an agreement, evidence, and a lot of it must be in existence. I have been looking for and asking for a SINGLE piece of observed, measured evidence for 3 decades now and the wait continues...

Exactly where is this overwhelming body of evidence that would prompt scientists to reach a consensus? If such a body of evidence were in existence, it surely could be accessed by anyone who cared to look...where is it?

 

[daveman]

Sheesh, Confounding, it looks like it's completely impossible for you to be shamed for such blatant hero-worship.

You are correct that I will not feel shame for respecting the views of the people that know more about this than anybody else.

You should, when it's repeatedly been proven they lie. But that doesn't matter to you, because they told you they're telling the truth, and that's good enough for you.

 

[SSDD]

You keep making claims that the evidence simply don't bear out..you have made the claim that climatologists are expanding the boundaries of what we understand about the climate more than once...

I asked for an example or two...can you provide any or not?

I'll reiterate because you failed to answer.

Do you not understand why climate scientists the world over are the authority when it comes to understanding the climate?

Climatologists are not the authority...You seem to think that because they are climatologists that they must be the authority...and yet, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....what sort of "authority" exactly has no actual evidence to support their mainstream hypothesis?

Simply making the claim that climatologists are the "authority" when you can provide no supporting evidence to support the claim is nothing more than a logical fallacy. Lets see some observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability and then we can discuss whether they are any sort of actual "authority" or not. If no such evidence is forthcoming, then the question of their "authority" is answered...

 

[Billy_Bob]

APPEALS TO AUTHORITY

Do you not understand why climate scientists the world over are the authority when it comes to our current understanding of the climate?

As a climate scientist, your appeal to them outs you as a political hack who has no understanding of the hypothesis, nor do you understand why it has failed. Anyone who has experienced predictive failure after predictive failure, as these people have, are not authorities you should be claiming are experts.