That doesn't make it a lie.
What if it came from 9000 scientists?
11000 scientists warn re climate change
- Thread starter Xelasnave.1947
- Start date
Most people with internet web site building experience know that you can not expect to run an online poll or survey or registrar with out wankers turning up to spoil the list.
It appears that the web site producers were a bit naive and exposed them selves to infiltration by wankers.
Then along comes reader who claims that one or two wanker posts means that the list is a fraud and wanker "mickey mouse" wins at destroying credibility.
It is about naivety and scientists are notorious for their lack of internet savvy.
It is also about taking too much stock in online outcomes.
However be that as it may the articles authors can be shown to be genuine and quite erudite scientists.
Even if they alone sign up to such a list, the article has credibility IMO
It appears that the web site producers were a bit naive and exposed them selves to infiltration by wankers.
Then along comes reader who claims that one or two wanker posts means that the list is a fraud and wanker "mickey mouse" wins at destroying credibility.
It is about naivety and scientists are notorious for their lack of internet savvy.
It is also about taking too much stock in online outcomes.
However be that as it may the articles authors can be shown to be genuine and quite erudite scientists.
Even if they alone sign up to such a list, the article has credibility IMO
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Miss Spoke such a charming lass.
It is not up to me to come up with excuses or what ifs.
The number it came from should be well er...the number it came from.
I feel uncomfortable if what is presented to the public is less than accurate.
Anyways we still need to see the list..might be scientists end to end up to 11,000 or a number we can use to determine a percentage of actual scientists.
Alex
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
fyi
i have dug into the links on countless fake science news items
they are either funded by fake charity types or linked to some private blog post comment where an un supported personal opinion has been made suggesting a scientific fact is the ability to say no to some type of scientific principal.
it is then quoted and linked and then re-published into a stand alone piece using those names as linked authors.
on average they are around 3 to 4 layers deep so the lier tin-foil-hat crank can claim ignorance while pointing at someone else saying you have to prove the other person wrong when there is no science behind them, only half linked fake links to personal anti-science blogger religo types)
its all very tin-foil-hat zombie apocalypse stuff.
now all those people who published all that fake news are creating historic links for the conspiracy climate change deniers to fake link to and pretend its a real debate of sane logical thinkers.
i suggest you simply ignore them.
they are no different to people willingly 'obstructing'(easier to make sociopath excuses for?) the exit during a fire evacuation.
Last edited:
Wattsup is completely unreliable, has been caught repeatedly making shit up, and has been doing that for years now. If you pay attention to them, you will lose rather than gain real world information and understanding.
I recall, for example, them attempting to make a fraud issue of instrument calibration in satellites, attempting to deny, and then discredit, and then refer to it as having been denied and discredited, (years of backfilling as the facts came in) the famous "hockey stick" graph, and similar displays of agenda override.
Wattsup tells many lies, many half or unverifiable claims, and some truths, all with the same agenda: the classic behavior of a bullshit delivery service.
It is a partial an anemic track record of the American rightwing corporate authoritarian propaganda efforts to protect the fossil fuel industry's power and money from an inconvenient truth: that industry is destroying the landscape and governance necessary for the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, of the American people.
That is: Somebody cherry-picked and misrepresented those "predictions" - to the point of wholesale invention, at times.
And that is not hindsight: solid sources were calling bullshit on many of them when they were made. None of them were consensus rulings by any responsible body of scientists or chosen representatives of same. Few of them were reported accurately by Wattsup - an easy check is anything they said or repeated about Al Gore, an easily researched, prolific, and plainly spoken public figure they have no excuse for getting wrong even then, let alone years later and after multiple debunkings.
Last edited:
Perhaps some specifics - and an illustration of the difficulty of dealing with Wattsup and similar sources, the burden they place on any media conned into presenting "both sides" regardless of actual intention and agenda, as an example of the mendacity Wattsup wallows in and provides others, has been paid well to wallow in and provide others for many years now -
a headline from the list above, concerning a frequent target easy for anyone to check, easily recognized as illustrative, a reference to Al Gore in the context of climate change.
First: Gore is and has been for decades a politically conservative, center-right, Democratic Party affiliated politician turned public spokesman for a cause. Gore is not a scientist, or even educated in a field derived from hard science, but even so his track record on climate change - what he actually said and meant, remember, not some fossil fuel shill's media-amplified bs - has turned out to be much closer on average to the subsequent events than Wattsup could manage in ten years if they quit telling lies tomorrow. And his misses have been almost all in the opposite direction of Wattsup's agenda - he has been a bit conservative, rather than alarmist, in keeping with his sources and his personal character as revealed over many years in the public eye. He knows who the knowledgable are, and listens to them.
Second, an example - a very generous Snopes evaluation ("mixture") of one of those bullshit headlines in that bullshit list (Snopes's "mixture" label is often a marker for bullshit): https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/
we are running serious and near term risks of dramatic change for wholly inadequate reasons, of touching off harms and ruinations now visibly possible within a couple of decades and increasingly probable to the point of essential inevitability within a couple of centuries.
Note that what is "false " (by Snopes) is exactly what the propaganda campaign claims tried to present as Gore's central thesis and Gore's falsehood: that he, Al Gore, had thought this stuff up on his own; that he was referring to both polar regions and all seasons; that he was "predicting" an event of 2013 or '14; and that he was proven wrong when that event did not happen in either year. None of that is true, all of it is significant and central to the paid shill's claims, so far so good for Snopes - - - but:
notice that Snopes is treating the rest of the denialist claims attached to that headline gently and discreetly : more assignments of falsehood and deception could have been piled on*, and such redundancy matters.
It's how one kills the reputation of the source, justifies an honest punditry's refusal to repeat what such sources present for public discussion, thereby avoiding enlistment as a tool of propaganda campaigns employing Big Lie repetition in their bullshit.
For whatever reason: Snopes, Truthout, et al failed to avoid that trap in this case.
For example: the denialist inclusion of the problems and sources of error inherent in surface ice coverage by satellite misleads the reader by omitting the various ways in which they were and are handled, different measurements compared and used to correct each other - the reader is left with the impression that Wattsup was correct in implying that Gore's claim had no reliable data support.
*https://truthout.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/images/images_2013_09/2013_0919mel_3.jpg
Notice the lower range marker - itself not the lowest possible, but the 95% confidence level marker standard in such published data - goes to 0 in 2013, or just before 2014, exactly as Gore claimed the published research showed. That was the claim allegedly disputed by Wattsup, in the headline - it was an accurate claim.
And a bit more link reading brings up a key fact, one any good faith discussion of Arctic sea ice would acknowledge. https://truthout.org/articles/arctic-sea-ice-and-al-gores-prediction-2013/
And ostracize the source upon attempted repetition. Wattsup stopped being a respectable source long ago.
By leaving the bulk of Wattsup's deception repeated and untouched, even going out of their way to dig up recordings of conference dinners and other suggestions of possible support not mentioned by Wattsup itself, Snopes et al abet the success of such bullshit campaigns - the strategy and tactic most lethal to liberal democracies, much more destructive than the simple lying it comprises in part.
And that's why this post is in this thread, rather than somewhere else.
a headline from the list above, concerning a frequent target easy for anyone to check, easily recognized as illustrative, a reference to Al Gore in the context of climate change.
First: Gore is and has been for decades a politically conservative, center-right, Democratic Party affiliated politician turned public spokesman for a cause. Gore is not a scientist, or even educated in a field derived from hard science, but even so his track record on climate change - what he actually said and meant, remember, not some fossil fuel shill's media-amplified bs - has turned out to be much closer on average to the subsequent events than Wattsup could manage in ten years if they quit telling lies tomorrow. And his misses have been almost all in the opposite direction of Wattsup's agenda - he has been a bit conservative, rather than alarmist, in keeping with his sources and his personal character as revealed over many years in the public eye. He knows who the knowledgable are, and listens to them.
Second, an example - a very generous Snopes evaluation ("mixture") of one of those bullshit headlines in that bullshit list (Snopes's "mixture" label is often a marker for bullshit): https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/
Note that what is "true" (by Snopes) was Gore's central point and simple fact - Gore accurately described some findings of careful and thoroughly critiqued research as published in reputable journals, and drew an obvious and uncontroversial conclusion:
we are running serious and near term risks of dramatic change for wholly inadequate reasons, of touching off harms and ruinations now visibly possible within a couple of decades and increasingly probable to the point of essential inevitability within a couple of centuries.
Note that what is "false " (by Snopes) is exactly what the propaganda campaign claims tried to present as Gore's central thesis and Gore's falsehood: that he, Al Gore, had thought this stuff up on his own; that he was referring to both polar regions and all seasons; that he was "predicting" an event of 2013 or '14; and that he was proven wrong when that event did not happen in either year. None of that is true, all of it is significant and central to the paid shill's claims, so far so good for Snopes - - - but:
notice that Snopes is treating the rest of the denialist claims attached to that headline gently and discreetly : more assignments of falsehood and deception could have been piled on*, and such redundancy matters.
It's how one kills the reputation of the source, justifies an honest punditry's refusal to repeat what such sources present for public discussion, thereby avoiding enlistment as a tool of propaganda campaigns employing Big Lie repetition in their bullshit.
For whatever reason: Snopes, Truthout, et al failed to avoid that trap in this case.
For example: the denialist inclusion of the problems and sources of error inherent in surface ice coverage by satellite misleads the reader by omitting the various ways in which they were and are handled, different measurements compared and used to correct each other - the reader is left with the impression that Wattsup was correct in implying that Gore's claim had no reliable data support.
*https://truthout.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/images/images_2013_09/2013_0919mel_3.jpg
Notice the lower range marker - itself not the lowest possible, but the 95% confidence level marker standard in such published data - goes to 0 in 2013, or just before 2014, exactly as Gore claimed the published research showed. That was the claim allegedly disputed by Wattsup, in the headline - it was an accurate claim.
And a bit more link reading brings up a key fact, one any good faith discussion of Arctic sea ice would acknowledge. https://truthout.org/articles/arctic-sea-ice-and-al-gores-prediction-2013/
Gore was - as usual in technical matters - "functionally" or realistically correct, and Wattsup was - as always, since they deal in bullshit to begin with - "functionally" wrong; wrong so flagrantly and with such obvious bias that the falsehood would in almost any other context than a paid Republican shill's hit job be labeled slander by lying.
And ostracize the source upon attempted repetition. Wattsup stopped being a respectable source long ago.
By leaving the bulk of Wattsup's deception repeated and untouched, even going out of their way to dig up recordings of conference dinners and other suggestions of possible support not mentioned by Wattsup itself, Snopes et al abet the success of such bullshit campaigns - the strategy and tactic most lethal to liberal democracies, much more destructive than the simple lying it comprises in part.
And that's why this post is in this thread, rather than somewhere else.
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
And I certainly am happy that you did.
I love your writing and I am grateful you take the time to describe your reality.
You do have a wonderful way of fitting things into your big picture and I sit here and learn, so I sincerely thank you.
So we still need to see the list...and until who is on that list need we take it for a ride.
But I conclude the net enables one to find whatever reality they want.
The positive one has to be very careful as to what you believe ... I think the worse and hope for the best...that has been said before now however it's one of those things you grab to start centering yourself.
It's so nice here..in my real world everyone thinks I am the smart one and without being cruel or up myself that's sortta the way of it..simple folk...then to come here and have the privilege of reading the wonderful threads ( the ones I don't muddy) and talking to folk like yourself such that my domant intellect is sparked ...well it's great.
Thanks again.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
And by mixing with simple folk if any at all I changed my style, try hard to use a vocabulary that even a five year old will understand, forget grammar and write as would must speak so everyone has a he best chance of understanding what you are saying..the style has flaws from a lack of pression however I find the approach wins more than it losses.
The fires are going crazy over here..I think fifty homes gone.. that was tv in the background and I wasn't paying attention so that should be verified.
Alex
The fires are going crazy over here..I think fifty homes gone.. that was tv in the background and I wasn't paying attention so that should be verified.
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
300 homes lost since fires started and the fifty lost was only for yesterday.
The real concern when you step back and look at this terrible situation....all these fires are started by humans....that is the concern that needs to be addressed before any other...sure climate change etc but it is not climate change starting the fire...it is a human...and so many...are they all hopefully stupid or folk together when they light th se fires...in the high numbers of fires deliberately lite..sorry I am assuming stuff..I will check the numbers...but I suspect we need to be looking at why people are doing this.
300 homes aint small potatoes.
I do think we need to focus on why so many fires because irrespective of climate change ...they don't start by themselves.
Alex
The real concern when you step back and look at this terrible situation....all these fires are started by humans....that is the concern that needs to be addressed before any other...sure climate change etc but it is not climate change starting the fire...it is a human...and so many...are they all hopefully stupid or folk together when they light th se fires...in the high numbers of fires deliberately lite..sorry I am assuming stuff..I will check the numbers...but I suspect we need to be looking at why people are doing this.
300 homes aint small potatoes.
I do think we need to focus on why so many fires because irrespective of climate change ...they don't start by themselves.
Alex
So far it appears that the losses while, sadly sustained, including the discovery of another victim.(4th confirmed)..have been heavily mitigated by extraordinary effort, courage and superior communications and command structures of the CFA and MFB. Including the import of fire fighters from all over...including NZ.
I must admit I am impressed with how well organized they have been this time.
With out this determined effort to improve team work and organization, evacuation orders , emergency declarations and police over sight for the breacher's of total fire bans etc. the results so far could have been considerably worse by many orders...
It is far from over of course, as it is late Spring with the Summer yet to arrive and Victoria is in the middle of a cool spell.
Fires in 3 states simultaneously (QLD, NSW, WA) is enough of a concern given the limitations of human and material resources.
I can only hope that we are ready for the Summer season. especially around January and early February.
At the moment and into the future Australia's forests are a Pyromaniac's dream come true....
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
One was started here in Sydney...that is a worry
I wonder why people are starting these fires.
Alex
I wonder why people are starting these fires.
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I had not realised people had died.
Heck I have just cut off the outside world I much check in more often.
I am sortta recovering from the recent close calls had enough of fires head on my shoulders.
Good news moving around much better.
Alex
Heck I have just cut off the outside world I much check in more often.
I am sortta recovering from the recent close calls had enough of fires head on my shoulders.
Good news moving around much better.
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
It's probably nothing more than the start of the collapse of civilization.
Alex
Alex
Certainly the collapse of cohesive federal government. The current uproar in Federal Parliament over Australia's lack of an effective AGW strategy is very telling. ( due possibly to the sheer scale of the current and future fire problems)
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I have cut myself off from it all so I can think without that annoying buzz from reality.
I can imagine.
Still my little observation is the one to address while they work out the rest of it...simple...so many fires is the point...no doubt the data , hopefully is being gathered, to work out if there is a profile..heck we must have some numbers to work with..how many fires do humans start..not just these ones that make the news but the little ones that get put out in an afternoon ...but they still had to be called to put out a fire started by a human. Make it criminal to travell with a cigarette lighter in your possession..I have already guessed the data and determine banning lighters is a good first step. Then an educational program...we got to have..an educational program..well yeh ..lots to do but the problem lays with so many fires the fuel is an issue it always is you can not get on top of it without a lot of effort...
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Maybe no one has noticed is it is very dry, the dry causes dams to go down so fires etc..it's not good not to have water...so what needs to be done is town water pipes to every property Australia wide supplied by a system of giant lakes and we get sprinklers all over the place.
The water comes from sea water supplies that distills the fresh water in transit so the lakes are full of fresh water...the salt in the pipes is removed and sold on by folk who sell salt. The lakes irrigate the whole country and we can sustain billions of humans.
Alex
The water comes from sea water supplies that distills the fresh water in transit so the lakes are full of fresh water...the salt in the pipes is removed and sold on by folk who sell salt. The lakes irrigate the whole country and we can sustain billions of humans.
Alex
The real problem is the political leaders of nations denying that there IS a problem to begin with.
Here in Australia:
- We are in the middle of a historically severe drought and water shortage in so many regions.
- We are importing grain to supplement failed crops due to water shortages.
- 2019/20 may be the very last year of a living Barrier reef off the coast of Queensland.
- All forests including rain forests are tinder dry or close to.
- Insurance premiums have gone through the roof in many regions
- and so on...
Every minute the Government Deny's a problem exists more people will die or suffer in the future than would other wise die or suffer... Fact!
"There are many consequences of Climate change denial.
One being that insufficient resources are being made available to prevent losses that are predictable.
The fires we are experiencing have been predicted years ago and ample time has been available to adapt and properly equip people to deal with it, but because our Government is in denial those resources are not being made available and the attitude towards what appears to be on the horizon and in some cases already here is, simply wrong headed. If you feel the problem is bad now, just wait till next year or the one after..." ~QQ FB
Regardless of causation the Governments of the world have a responsibility to prepare for the outcome of so called "natural" disasters that are increasing in frequency by the year. To not do so would be grossly negligent.
They can worry about the causation later...if they have to... ( although the hypocrisy would be obvious IMO)
I guess it is only when regional Australia starts to migrate to the cities because of safety concerns, impossibility to insure etc... then and only then will the Government start to realise they missed the only opportunity that they will get to mitigate the obvious.
..eh...sorry ...end of rant...
Last edited:
Many do and many have but as you have discovered with your own fire experiences, reality has a penchant of biting people on the bum if they ignore her...
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Could be worse.
Don't be sorry it was a great rant.
What do you think of my concern that we must address the out break of fires. We may have more sucess if we work towards preventing fires in the first place and the drier it gets the harder we will have to prevent fires.
And certainly more resources to find a fire faster and a system where water bombers respond like fighter planes in war.
Heck if there is a fire you launch and put it out. Hours in response time is not even good enough..it has to be immediate....or we could wait for other solutions ... We can see enough to realise we need to step up our performance with putting out fires.
Couldn't you have a satellite that can set off a fire alarm and at that instant the water bombers launch...heck you could have one in the air all the time ready to swoop down and put it out. Every able bodied human is now a fire fighter each carries a fire extinguisher and an alarm.
Breeding pairs selected in their ability to fight fires.
Fire itself is the first enemy to deal with..the humans that tomorrow or the next day will enable our enemy to become real. These witches who release the demon fire need to chill.
Alex