|
Post by Davef on Sept 6, 2023 17:56:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Sept 6, 2023 21:46:30 GMT
So, they lied to get a publication. Sounds like an unethical scientist. I hope their career goes down the pan. It happens sometimes. As in absolutely every career path, there will always be that asshole in the office looking to take the easy way out. I don’t believe in the idea that “changing the narrative” isn’t publishable. Changing the narrative is the most publishable science around.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 7, 2023 6:00:59 GMT
So, they lied to get a publication. Sounds like an unethical scientist. I hope their career goes down the pan. It happens sometimes. As in absolutely every career path, there will always be that asshole in the office looking to take the easy way out. I don’t believe in the idea that “changing the narrative” isn’t publishable. Changing the narrative is the most publishable science around. "I am a climate scientist. And while climate change is an important factor affecting wildfires over many parts of the world, it isn’t close to the only factor that deserves our sole focus.
"So why does the press focus so intently on climate change as the root cause? Perhaps for the same reasons I just did in an academic paper about wildfires in Nature, one of the world’s most prestigious journals: it fits a simple storyline that rewards the person telling it."Or is he attempting to expose journals like "Nature" and "Science" who wilfully ignore key reasons for wildfires and other catastrophic events because it doesn't fit THEIR narrative? PS: Patrick Brown is a PhD climate scientist and co-director of the Climate and Energy Team at The Breakthrough Institute.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Sept 7, 2023 7:14:42 GMT
So, they lied to get a publication. Sounds like an unethical scientist. I hope their career goes down the pan. It happens sometimes. As in absolutely every career path, there will always be that asshole in the office looking to take the easy way out. I don’t believe in the idea that “changing the narrative” isn’t publishable. Changing the narrative is the most publishable science around. "I am a climate scientist. And while climate change is an important factor affecting wildfires over many parts of the world, it isn’t close to the only factor that deserves our sole focus.
"So why does the press focus so intently on climate change as the root cause? Perhaps for the same reasons I just did in an academic paper about wildfires in Nature, one of the world’s most prestigious journals: it fits a simple storyline that rewards the person telling it."Or is he attempting to expose journals like "Nature" and "Science" who wilfully ignore key reasons for wildfires and other catastrophic events because it doesn't fit THEIR narrative? PS: Patrick Brown is a PhD climate scientist and co-director of the Climate and Energy Team at The Breakthrough Institute. We all know the press will just go for headline grabbing statements to get viewers or clicks, anyone with a bit of sense knows that, and people picking out the odd meme and story and posting it when there are hundreds of other scientific papers or stories out there are dragging themselves down to their level. One scientist doesn't post the full truth to get something published, maybe he should have looked elsewhere or brought the issue out in a newspaper, on a website or social media ? Anyone with their finger on the pulse will know that climate change is only one factor affecting the wildfires, human behaviour is mostly responsible in adding in all the other factors, and we are causing just about them, unbalancing the natural eco systems, chopping down forests, bringing in non native species, draining the lands of water etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Sept 7, 2023 8:47:34 GMT
Or is he attempting to expose journals like "Nature" and "Science" who wilfully ignore key reasons for wildfires and other catastrophic events because it doesn't fit THEIR narrative? Patrick Brown's paper looks interesting, how do you interpret its abstract? If you're interested in more factors, here's one that talks about things like population changing and moving, risks from exotic vegetation used in gardens etc.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 7, 2023 9:05:17 GMT
You do realise the author of this article is unequivocal about climate change being real? All he was doing was pointing out that getting published in scientific journals can be gamed - it doesn't mean that the scientific consensus on climate change isn't a thing. This problem of confirmation bias is a known issue (see www.wilsonquarterly.com/quarterly/_/sciences-under-discussed-problem-with-confirmation-bias for example) and there are people in the scientific community looking into how the problem can be addressed. The thing is every single one of your posts about climate change is an example of confirmation bias. You've decided it isn't real and you constantly cherry pick individual examples to "prove" your point. The difference between your mindset and that of the scientific community is that they recognise it as an issue and are doing things to address it while you don't seem to realise that what you are doing is the result of confirmation bias and don't want to do anything about as you have made you mind up on the subject and have no intention of changing it. The scientific method is the best approach we have to understanding how the world works. In comparison your approach is the perfect example of how not to go about understanding how the world works.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 7, 2023 9:10:18 GMT
You do realise the author of this article is unequivocal about climate change being real? Having read his article, yes.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Sept 7, 2023 10:03:58 GMT
So, they lied to get a publication. Sounds like an unethical scientist. I hope their career goes down the pan. It happens sometimes. As in absolutely every career path, there will always be that asshole in the office looking to take the easy way out. I don’t believe in the idea that “changing the narrative” isn’t publishable. Changing the narrative is the most publishable science around. "I am a climate scientist. And while climate change is an important factor affecting wildfires over many parts of the world, it isn’t close to the only factor that deserves our sole focus.
"So why does the press focus so intently on climate change as the root cause? Perhaps for the same reasons I just did in an academic paper about wildfires in Nature, one of the world’s most prestigious journals: it fits a simple storyline that rewards the person telling it."Or is he attempting to expose journals like "Nature" and "Science" who wilfully ignore key reasons for wildfires and other catastrophic events because it doesn't fit THEIR narrative? PS: Patrick Brown is a PhD climate scientist and co-director of the Climate and Energy Team at The Breakthrough Institute. Yes. I read the article too and I think his opinion is wrong. It’s not like he tried to publish the same work with the other factors he mentions and was rejected. It is important to keep a paper streamlined, that doesn’t mean you can’t add results in a smaller section of the paper and leave them in as supplementals, nor does it mean that you can’t broach them in the limitations section of the discussion you write.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Sept 7, 2023 11:07:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Sept 7, 2023 11:33:14 GMT
Yes. I read the article too and I think his opinion is wrong. It’s not like he tried to publish the same work with the other factors he mentions and was rejected. It is important to keep a paper streamlined, that doesn’t mean you can’t add results in a smaller section of the paper and leave them in as supplementals, nor does it mean that you can’t broach them in the limitations section of the discussion you write. It's a strange one. He's having a go at Nature for publishing a paper looking at one part of a topic. Nature's guide is ~2.5k wordals and ~4 figures, so it basically always covers focussed papers. He implies nature only wants climate papers, but a Nature journal also published Barriers and enablers for prescribed burns for wildfire management in California, which is all about a way to treat forests to reduce fires. He's with the Breakthrough Institute who are all about trying to water down climate action so I suppose it's his job to spin things a bit now?
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Sept 7, 2023 11:43:51 GMT
Makes sense - the weather station measurements in Sardinia where the headlines were talking about agreed with the BBC, met office etc all along. The bloggers, influencers etc who were claiming conspiracy were spouting crap all along. It sucks because it'd be nice to trust people to get it right, but these conspiracy influencers either don't know how to look at weather data or they are happy to exploit normal folk who don't have time to check everything. Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by Vadiation_Ribe on Sept 7, 2023 20:38:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Sept 9, 2023 21:41:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Sept 10, 2023 8:16:47 GMT
Absolutely nuts! It's the sort of thing that makes me think we really should just be building more housing. Yeah you get some pollution and lose some countryside, but especially in cities the smaller houses will end up taking less space than if people live elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Sept 10, 2023 8:18:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Sept 11, 2023 12:29:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Sept 13, 2023 7:49:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Sept 13, 2023 9:32:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 13, 2023 11:58:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Sept 13, 2023 12:17:56 GMT
Classic Oatie disinformation! At no point does Packham advocate doing such a thing. He simply states that it's something that might happen in future. He's probably right. Depends whether any progress is made on addressing oil usage, greenhouse gas emissions etc or whether the world is simply allowed to keep on heating up. Even the Scotland Yard rentaquote numpty appears to get that, although it didn't stop him coming out with a nice clickbait style statement!
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Sept 13, 2023 18:07:58 GMT
10,000 missing in Libyan floods caused by storm deluge overwhelming storage reservoirs.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Sept 14, 2023 7:04:58 GMT
What about the 100 scientists with him, he is a conduit for their studies, and listening to the video he is quite reasoned.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Sept 15, 2023 13:56:22 GMT
Paging mrcoke, could use some help understanding what this new deal for the Port Talbot steelworks means. Govt pitching in £500 million for electric arc furnaces.
|
|
|
Post by aureliuspotter on Sept 18, 2023 18:48:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Sept 19, 2023 21:15:57 GMT
Sounds like Sunak's about to ditch some climate change pledges.
No surprise really after Uxbridge but putting potential votes ahead of all those promises and pledges that came out of COP 26 just shows how desperate and two-faced this government is.
They'll do anything for votes even if it means sacrificing future generations' well-being.
Tawdry stuff.
|
|
|
Post by aureliuspotter on Sept 19, 2023 21:39:50 GMT
After reading the article, it seems like the Guardian is essentially asserting that climate deniers are incorrect simply based on their own declaration, rather than presenting a convincing argument. This approach lacks substance and credibility. To clarify, I personally do not deny climate change; I firmly believe in its existence. However, if we want to persuade a broader audience, it is crucial to rely on impartial, concrete evidence instead of relying on biased journalistic opinions.
|
|
|
Post by aureliuspotter on Sept 19, 2023 21:44:01 GMT
Sounds like Sunak's about to ditch some climate change pledges. No surprise really after Uxbridge but putting potential votes ahead of all those promises and pledges that came out of COP 26 just shows how desperate and two-faced this government is. They'll do anything for votes even if it means sacrificing future generations' well-being. Tawdry stuff. You sound surprised, Sunak and this government have the morals of an alley cat.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Sept 21, 2023 14:32:11 GMT
After reading the article, it seems like the Guardian is essentially asserting that climate deniers are incorrect simply based on their own declaration, rather than presenting a convincing argument. This approach lacks substance and credibility. To clarify, I personally do not deny climate change; I firmly believe in its existence. However, if we want to persuade a broader audience, it is crucial to rely on impartial, concrete evidence instead of relying on biased journalistic opinions. I'm not sure what else the Guardian were supposed to add there? Should they have added graphs of the data from Sardinian weather stations or something? Maybe. The story is that the BBC used air temperature data that went over 40 C in a bunch of places, satellites measured much higher surface temperature (some places over 60 C iirc). Then some bloggers and influencers decided to tell people that air temperatures didn't go much over 30 C, even though they were measured over 40 C at a load of weather stations.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Sept 21, 2023 15:04:18 GMT
Paging mrcoke, could use some help understanding what this new deal for the Port Talbot steelworks means. Govt pitching in £500 million for electric arc furnaces. OK This proposal is effectively to abandon all the plant I used to manage including Coke ovens, sinter plant, and all the material handling, up to the blast furnaces, plus the blast furnaces and steelmaking plant and I expect the power station. Effectively half or more of the works. I expect the port will continue at reduced activity. Secondly to install electric arc processing. It effectively means stopping steelmaking in the true sense from iron ore and replacing it with steel recycling by turning scrap steel into new products. It is obviously far more environmentally friendly, reducing carbon emissions provided all the massive amount of electricity consumed is generated in a green manner. It should be noted that traditional steelmaking utilises alĺ the off gasses from the Coke ovens ( largely hydrogen), blast furnaces and steel basic oxygen vessels (largely CO) as an energy source for power, and possibly furnaces in the rolling mills. So it is ia bit of 2 steps forward and 1 step back. Large amounts of fuel are consumed in rolling mills, as well as electricity, in reheat and annealing furnaces. Is it viable? Well not in my day. Electricity is very expensive as a source and UK electricity has always been one of the most expensive. Consequently electric arc has only been used to produce very expensive stainless steels as in the Sheffield area. Secondly, the process relies on a supply of scrap metal. This should not be an immediate issue as the UK exports huge amounts of scrap metal. Buf the more people switch to electric arc the less scrap will be available and we all know what happens to prices when there is a shortage. I presume the same is planned at Scunthorpe, but that is less economically viable as Scunthorpe generally produces lower value products for construction, pipes, rails, etc., whereas PT produces higher valued flat products for cars, white goods, etc. Don't take everything above literally, as the real world is far more complex. I generalise and there are always exceptions. On a different topic, there is a lot of talk about using hydrogen to make steel. That is a long way off even if found viable. It is being used in secondary steelmaking in place of gas, but there is no commercial steel production from iron ore, as far as I am aware just pilot plants.
|
|
|
Post by aureliuspotter on Sept 21, 2023 15:40:01 GMT
After reading the article, it seems like the Guardian is essentially asserting that climate deniers are incorrect simply based on their own declaration, rather than presenting a convincing argument. This approach lacks substance and credibility. To clarify, I personally do not deny climate change; I firmly believe in its existence. However, if we want to persuade a broader audience, it is crucial to rely on impartial, concrete evidence instead of relying on biased journalistic opinions. I'm not sure what else the Guardian were supposed to add there? Should they have added graphs of the data from Sardinian weather stations or something? Maybe. The story is that the BBC used air temperature data that went over 40 C in a bunch of places, satellites measured much higher surface temperature (some places over 60 C iirc). Then some bloggers and influencers decided to tell people that air temperatures didn't go much over 30 C, even though they were measured over 40 C at a load of weather stations. There isnt anything they coudo add really.
|
|