Global Warming: Are Sea Levels Rising?

It's incredibly naive to say that scientists are motivated by their research in the science. You have no idea what motivates them; only they do. Certainly, curiosity is part of it. But there is plenty else that can and does play a role. There are far too many times to count wherein researchers have been guilty of allowing their bias to distort or even completely fabricate their evidence, hence the current crisis in replicatability and accuracy of many studies. I've worked in a microbiological cancer lab for an extended period of time, and my PI told me on more than one occasion what incredible bias and dogma can impact what gets published and how. It's a problem.

Additionally, there's not a shortage of climate scientists who disagree that humans are impacting the climate in a significant way. I've seen research articles suggesting that some don't feel that it is a very big issue. So that knife cuts both ways.
I've worked with them enough to know. Can you say you have?
 
In no way is that what I'm after, nor is a single one of those things a point I raised in this discussion. I was simply pointing out that I think it's silly to just say "why should we trust Jim?" when Steve was also making claims himself. It wasn't an actual statement having to do with which side I think is right or wrong.

From what you just shared, I don't see anything that touches on most of Jim's points. Also I am happy he mentioned the "scientific consensus", as if a consensus signals some unassailable truth. "Settled science" is hilariously, in and of itself, anti-science, and yet those who use it are often leveling a claim against others they claim are "anti-science". It is actually anti-science to claim that something in science is settled. The whole purpose of science is to continue to question and search, not to just say "I'm right you're wrong and a science denier" when, as steve pointed out earlier, climate science is complex.
 
I've worked with them enough to know. Can you say you have?
No steve, you haven't, and again to claim that you know is comical. Yes, I absolutely worked long enough with them to understand the process and also understand that they're real people who aren't magically exempt from bias or self interests just because they do research. I did the research myself steve, I didn't just work with them. I've also lived with my brothers for over 20 years of my life; I don't know their motivations for everything. I can guess at them, but it's being disingenuous to act as if you simply know all scientists' motivations because you worked with some. That's ridiculous, plain and simple.
 
Why are we to assume that what you are saying is accurate? You've cited a number things in this forum not backed up by a link. What a silly thing to say. If you think what he's saying isn't accurate, look into it and let us know what you find.
He sites Judith Curry for one. Do you know her position off the top of your head? I do. She believes climate change is happening and she says humans are part of the problem. Her question is how much. Jim's argument is scientists get things wrong so we should distrust all scientists. That's what he did by posting all those links on page 1 I think it was.
 
In no way is that what I'm after, nor is a single one of those things a point I raised in this discussion. I was simply pointing out that I think it's silly to just say "why should we trust Jim?" when Steve was also making claims himself. It wasn't an actual statement having to do with which side I think is right or wrong.

From what you just shared, I don't see anything that touches on most of Jim's points. Also I am happy he mentioned the "scientific consensus", as if a consensus signals some unassailable truth. "Settled science" is hilariously, in and of itself, anti-science, and yet those who use it are often leveling a claim against others they claim are "anti-science". It is actually anti-science to claim that something in science is settled. The whole purpose of science is to continue to question and search, not to just say "I'm right you're wrong and a science denier" when, as steve pointed out earlier, climate science is complex.
In your own words define what a "scientific consensus" is. I want to see if you know.
 
No steve, you haven't, and again to claim that you know is comical. Yes, I absolutely worked long enough with them to understand the process and also understand that they're real people who aren't magically exempt from bias or self interests just because they do research. I did the research myself steve, I didn't just work with them. I've also lived with my brothers for over 20 years of my life; I don't know their motivations for everything. I can guess at them, but it's being disingenuous to act as if you simply know all scientists' motivations because you worked with some. That's ridiculous, plane and simple.
I'm not talking about the process of it nor their biases that exist. What motivates them year after year to get up in the morning and go to work? It is the thrill of discovery or solving a problem. That's what motivates them. What is the most important thing a scientist could say to himself or herself? I'll give you a hint. It is not Eureka, I've found!
 
Last edited:
I'm not talking about the process of it nor their biases that exist. What motivates them is the thrill of discovery or solving a problem. That's what motivates them. What is the most important thing a scientist could say to himself or herself? I'll give you a hint. It is not Eureka, I've found!
The thrill of discovery or solving a problem is what brings us all to this forum. I am motivated by those very same things. Again, I have done research for an extended period of time in a microbiology and cancer lab. However, those motivations are not unique to scientists or researchers in any way. That isn't what sets them apart. I could do without you speaking in such a condescending fashion - it seems that you really think you have all the answers here.

While I am curious to know what you mean when you say, "I want to see if you know" with regards to a scientific consensus, as if there is some universally accurate term (there isn't), I should think that since consensus means "general agreement" it's fairly obvious what it means.
 
He sites Judith Curry for one. Do you know her position off the top of your head? I do. She believes climate change is happening and she says humans are part of the problem. Her question is how much. Jim's argument is scientists get things wrong so we should distrust all scientists. That's what he did by posting all those links on page 1 I think it was.
I'm virtually certain that that is not what Jim argued.
 
In no way is that what I'm after, nor is a single one of those things a point I raised in this discussion. I was simply pointing out that I think it's silly to just say "why should we trust Jim?" when Steve was also making claims himself. It wasn't an actual statement having to do with which side I think is right or wrong.

From what you just shared, I don't see anything that touches on most of Jim's points. Also I am happy he mentioned the "scientific consensus", as if a consensus signals some unassailable truth. "Settled science" is hilariously, in and of itself, anti-science, and yet those who use it are often leveling a claim against others they claim are "anti-science". It is actually anti-science to claim that something in science is settled. The whole purpose of science is to continue to question and search, not to just say "I'm right you're wrong and a science denier" when, as steve pointed out earlier, climate science is complex.
If you follow the line of convo back Jim's point was around the accuracy of temperature readings (this a classic big oil diversion tactic - it pays to follow the money ;) ). That was addressed in that link, but this is interesting too:

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/arstec...ated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

What other specific points of Jim's do you consider worthy?
 
If you follow the line of convo back Jim's point was around the accuracy of temperature readings (this a classic big oil diversion tactic - it pays to follow the money ;) ). That was addressed in that link, but this is interesting too:

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/arstec...ated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

What other specific points of Jim's do you consider worthy?
Malf, I already stated that I think we impact climate change. I also already said I think the real discussion ought to be around how much we impact it, but that to me it's important to take precautions against potential issues with pollution and renewable resources anyway. My sole purpose in commenting on what steve said there was to point out that it's easy to just question the accuracy of something without going and looking into it yourself. Again, wasn't taking a side. I should note that I think the graph and link Max shared are important to consider.
 
I was actually pointing out that the Vostok ice core has a good correlation with atmospheric temperatures, and shows a clear pattern of temperature anomalies for the past 400 odd thousand years... those warming spikes are called interglacials...

tempplot5.gif


We can see from the chart (extreme left zero year) that we appear to be in one of these warming interglacials at present.

We can also see that the present warming interglacial period that we are in, is not yet as warm as some of the previous interglacial warming periods. For instance, the last interglacial (120 odd thousand years ago), shows a positive temperature variation of approximately 3 deg C, which is much more than the temperature variation we are experiencing today in the current interglacial period.
So if I'm reading that right we should be in a period of cooling now?
 
Here are two things I know with absolute certainty.
All of the problems of humanity are human caused.[my emphasis]

See: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm for a list of things blamed on global warming, in turn blamed on human beings on account of their CO2 production.

Some might see CAGW proponents as extreme anthropophobes, with a very dim view of their fellow human beings -- the hidden motive being to find some way of blaming others for all of our ills: some simplistic way of dividing humanity between we, the faithful, and they, the infidels. There's a similar dynamic behind political division, with which, as it happens, the CAGW meme interacts.

They can't see the irony in the mock environmentalism/humanitarianism involved in destroying large areas of rain forest to plant fuel crops; in imposing all sorts of taxes and financial burdens on those least able to afford it; and in jetting around the world to proselytise the evils of jetting around the world (Leonardo DiCaprio is a particularly egregious example).

As I intimated, I think CAGW is primarily a sociological phenomenon that has its roots largely in Western culture, where increasingly we lack the framing of good and evil in orthodox religious terms. It isn't that religion is disappearing, so much as that it is being transmogrified into something that continues to enable some people to be scapegoated much like black people once were. Now that the n-word can't be spoken, they use the d-word instead.

You see, one can't possibly have rational reasons for holding contrary opinions. One simply must be evil, or at the very best, a deluded idiot. We live in a world that has become less tolerant of diversity, despite all the lip service paid to it. This may be the source of the current backlash happening in both Europe and the United States: a global and hitherto unarticulated discomfort with the status quo, which, rightly or wrongly, is finding its expression in the ballot box. The righteous upholders of the former status quo are wailing and gnashing their teeth at the possibility of loss of power and influence.

We shall have to wait and see what happens if and when the CAGW meme is rejected. Personally, I don't think that if it is, things could ever be the same again: its proponents have been so loud and intrusive about their opinions that there'd be no place for them to hide and pretend they didn't really mean it. From their viewpoint, it's absolutely vital that they defend CAGW to the death, because losing can't be contemplated.

The knock-on effects for proponent scientists (and indeed the whole scientific establishment) would be particularly severe: never before would there have been anything so visibly humiliating for them. It would bring into the limelight, most importantly for the movers and shakers at the political level, the question of what else scientists might be wrong about. The whole scientific establishment would be under scrutiny: how it is funded, how its work is supervised and vetted, and a thousand other questions would have to be addressed which at the moment are slowly bubbling under the surface.

It might be that rather than risk a stark unveiling of the truth, we will see in the coming months and years an attempt to gradually downplay CAGW, hoping the whole matter could be quietly forgotten. I don't think that would happen, because it's become far too visible, and its ramifications would be too widespread to ignore.
 
See: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm for a list of things blamed on global warming, in turn blamed on human beings on account of their CO2 production.

Some might see CAGW proponents as extreme anthropophobes, with a very dim view of their fellow human beings -- the hidden motive being to find some way of blaming others for all of our ills: some simplistic way of dividing humanity between we, the faithful, and they, the infidels. There's a similar dynamic behind political division, with which, as it happens, the CAGW meme interacts.

They can't see the irony in the mock environmentalism/humanitarianism involved in destroying large areas of rain forest to plant fuel crops; in imposing all sorts of taxes and financial burdens on those least able to afford it; and in jetting around the world to proselytise the evils of jetting around the world (Leonardo DiCaprio is a particularly egregious example).

As I intimated, I think CAGW is primarily a sociological phenomenon that has its roots largely in Western culture, where increasingly we lack the framing of good and evil in orthodox religious terms. It isn't that religion is disappearing, so much as that it is being transmogrified into something that continues to enable some people to be scapegoated much like black people once were. Now that the n-word can't be spoken, they use the d-word instead.

You see, one can't possibly have rational reasons for holding contrary opinions. One simply must be evil, or at the very best, a deluded idiot. We live in a world that has become less tolerant of diversity, despite all the lip service paid to it. This may be the source of the current backlash happening in both Europe and the United States: a global and hitherto unarticulated discomfort with the status quo, which, rightly or wrongly, is finding its expression in the ballot box. The righteous upholders of the former status quo are wailing and gnashing their teeth at the possibility of loss of power and influence.

We shall have to wait and see what happens if and when the CAGW meme is rejected. Personally, I don't think that if it is, things could ever be the same again: its proponents have been so loud and intrusive about their opinions that there'd be no place for them to hide and pretend they didn't really mean it. From their viewpoint, it's absolutely vital that they defend CAGW to the death, because losing can't be contemplated.

The knock-on effects for proponent scientists (and indeed the whole scientific establishment) would be particularly severe: never before would there have been anything so visibly humiliating for them. It would bring into the limelight, most importantly for the movers and shakers at the political level, the question of what else scientists might be wrong about. The whole scientific establishment would be under scrutiny: how it is funded, how its work is supervised and vetted, and a thousand other questions would have to be addressed which at the moment are slowly bubbling under the surface.

It might be that rather than risk a stark unveiling of the truth, we will see in the coming months and years an attempt to gradually downplay CAGW in the hopes the whole matter could be quietly forgotten. I don't think that would happen, because it's become far too visible, and its ramifications would be too widespread to ignore.
It would behoove you to find scientifically supporting evidence for these allegations. You now have the opportunity to present fact instead of opining.
 
So if I'm reading that right we should be in a period of cooling now?

UHA, RSS & HadCRUT4 all suggest we're still in the interglacial, otherwise we would see the positive temperature variation falling.
 
Last edited:
I thought you wouldn't speak to your personal misgivings about climate change that would be, that would too revealing.
Yes, David you are right. All of the climate researchers worldwide are withholding information so they can do the real work of nefarious intent. Isn't that what you believe?
Steve, if you had written that response to anyone else, I might have banned you again, but since you responded to me, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

If you stuff words into other people's mouths with scant regard as to what they have written, I will do something about it.

Why don't you read your last few contributions here - you aren't really contributing anything to this discussion.

David
 
Back
Top