Climate Change vs. Waterfowl Migration
- Thread starter Carl
- Start date
Thanks for an invitation to the dance Gary, but I'm going to sit most of this one out. I'm busy with other issues that are closer to the concerns of this august community.
The authors of the original paper that was posted have done their analyses, reached their conclusions and put them out for the scrutiny of the world. Read the paper and assess whether their methods, analyses, results and conclusions are reasonable. I know the waterfowl biologist author and he is a solid scientist and is skeptical as all scientists should be. Remember that healthy debate is central to the scientific method.
Regarding the accuracy of equipment going back 150 years or so, my recollection is that scientists have used a variety of methods from tree rings to glacier ice to many other sources to assess long-term trends in everything from temperature, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to growth rates of trees and corals. All of those analyses used modern techniques and contemporary equipment and didn't rely upon handblown glass thermometers and some meticulous scribe or monk to keep the records.
It appears to me that much of the concern expressed here is misplaced. Attacking the scientists is akin to shooting the messengers in my mind. The real debate and concern is what policies should be implemented by society and who pays for those policies. For example, does it make a lot of sense to ban burning of coal in the US and then export it to China to be burned without any of the air quality standards imposed in the US?
Thats as far as my headlights shine, so I'll stop before I drive off a cliff.
Last edited by a moderator:
What an interesting dichotomy on your part, Todd. I recall offering you a very similar opportunity(without the sefl-rightous overtones) to disprove my statements in the "Great White North" thread. How did you respond, despite your previous announcement that you had ready access to a trained limnologist (wife) who did her doctoral dissertation on stained lakes in northern Wisconsin? You opted for a personal attack on me (third time on this board) and a diatribe about my limited "academic credentials" and lack of publications.
As evidenced quite frequently on this board, King Pyrrhus learned what you have not, nor will ever likely grasp as a valuable life lesson.
As I said before pure Hubris!
Mike Trudel
Well-known member
Even though I am not the Mike in question, my guess is "peer review process" is where one person lies and the rest swear to it.
(hehe) You guys are way to serious for simple duck hunters!
(hehe) You guys are way to serious for simple duck hunters!
Mike Sheppard
Active member
You would like me to explain what I know about the peer review process?
I'm not the one asserting that the process is perfect and the science is settled.
no room for doubt left to anyone with a brain.
The constant drumbeat that the concensus has spoken is what makes me think the process has been unduly influenced by money politics and ideology.
I never said thousands of scientists are cooking the books. Just that lots of imoney seems to be available for the believers..
want to study the effects of global warming on road rage ? here's your check.
we see this on the news daily
want to demonstrate that a 1 degree rise in temperature will result in increased crop yields worldwide? Probably be waiting for your check a little while.
And took what happens to anyone with questions. Denier! Heritic!
These are some of the problems that I see in the process. And don't tell me nobody ever cooks the books. History is full of men with huge egos unable to let go of their favorite theory.
The ipcc website attempts to explain the current pause in warming with several possible explanations
But reconsidering any of the their original premises wasn't one of them
But really that isn't even my main concern.
My real.problem with the whole issue is that i don't think even a small fraction of the processes that have kept earth's temperature stable for billions of years have been accounted for.
As I've said before give me a 10 day forecast i can rely upon and I'll consider your 30 year prognostication.
Last edited:
Mark W
Well-known member
Depending if you are an evolutionist or creationist, the earth is either around 5,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old. If someone can point me to to periods of time where the earth hasn't had warming periods and cooling periods in the past 4.5 billion years, something like we are going through at every single point in time in the modern world, I'll believe everything Al Gore is saying. And I want peer reviewed documentation to prove that nothing like this has ever occurred in the past 4.5 billion years.
My favorite Al Gore story and global warming is just too funny. He was giving a speech somewhere. A reporter went around to the back of the building where Gore's motorcaide was waiting. Here was a bunch or Escalades (I believe it was 4-5) of them all with their engines running and air conditioners on. Or how about the private plane he took to get there, or going back to his residence where he was spending $5,000/month on energy costs. Sure glad he is so concerned. Sure glad he is doing his part to reduce CO2 footprints......
If there is money to be made, or government funds to be handed out, people will exploit every trend till the end of time.
Mark W
My favorite Al Gore story and global warming is just too funny. He was giving a speech somewhere. A reporter went around to the back of the building where Gore's motorcaide was waiting. Here was a bunch or Escalades (I believe it was 4-5) of them all with their engines running and air conditioners on. Or how about the private plane he took to get there, or going back to his residence where he was spending $5,000/month on energy costs. Sure glad he is so concerned. Sure glad he is doing his part to reduce CO2 footprints......
If there is money to be made, or government funds to be handed out, people will exploit every trend till the end of time.
Mark W
Bill Clark
Well-known member
The last word on this topic has come to light. waterfowl migration be damned. The unrest on this site couples with global unrest, as stated recently by Al Gore . Al says global unrest is caused by global warming. There it is final, the inventor of the internet has spoken.
Now we need to determine if pres. B.O. is an "honorable Man".
he,he,he.
Now we need to determine if pres. B.O. is an "honorable Man".
he,he,he.
Mike Sheppard
Active member
1
maybe that's why I'm so grumpy at the thought of giving up my lifestyle because more educated men than me have spoken.
it just too darn hot.
Damn...have tried to reply several times....are you blocking them?
Having been part of the SERPD proprosal review committee for several years, we rejected many proposals because of the failure of downscaling models...please show me where downscaling models (used in the paper I cannot read...only the abstract which is meaningless, in a meteological journal which will not evaluate the biology).
Having been an editor...you send the manuscript to "experts" in the field....they are experts because they have published there....if the data does not support "their" data, I have seem brutal reviews if good data....then if the editor has published in the field, positive reviews will still be rejected by the editor.
You place all you confidence in the peer review process, but I am troll because. I question your basic premise...
Clint
Having been part of the SERPD proprosal review committee for several years, we rejected many proposals because of the failure of downscaling models...please show me where downscaling models (used in the paper I cannot read...only the abstract which is meaningless, in a meteological journal which will not evaluate the biology).
Having been an editor...you send the manuscript to "experts" in the field....they are experts because they have published there....if the data does not support "their" data, I have seem brutal reviews if good data....then if the editor has published in the field, positive reviews will still be rejected by the editor.
You place all you confidence in the peer review process, but I am troll because. I question your basic premise...
Clint
I never said peer-review was infallible or implied it was in individual cases. I asked specifically how there could be a systemic fraud perpetrated on the citizens of the world, given the process. I’m aware of some of the technical issues that arise with specific papers, but can any issues with the process describe 14000 to 24 papers published? Are there 5,000, 10,000 papers with solid ideas that dont' support climate change just sitting rejected, even 1,000 (not 24)? There isn't any data to support that idea, if there is from a reasonible source, I'd love to see it.
As someone who routinely publishes your work, obviously you don't have all that much of a problem with the process. I have received reviews that were troubling, but published the work in the end. I have published contrary to dogma and those papers ended up being some of my best received work.
As far as being a troll… Questioning the ideas I put forward had nothing to do with it. Did I call anyone else that questioned my ideas as being a troll? You are a troll because you are someone who can add a lot to this discussion, but refuse to enter until you perceive I said something that you would like to pick apart. I have respect for your anonymity as I do the others that are silent or quiet for their own personal or professional reasons (or because they are smarter than I), but you can’t have it both ways. If you are going to break into the middle of a thread with ideas on one small issue and not offer the considerable insight into the original topic that you could – that is a troll. For someone who routinely gives talks on the topic of the effects of climate change on birds, you have little to say here. What is the blue-haired birder crew more receptive to climate change and an easier audience?
Please show me incidences when downscaling models have worked.....SERDP has nervous studies when they have not worked...particularly in Alaska and the Pacific Atolls....but you are not being critical at all....you admit to flaws....but, you are willing to believe stuff in a metertological journal without evaluating it because it is peer reviewed.
Clint
Clint
You are not going to randomly guess.... buy you will believe the results without any background info of skepticism.... why was this not published in a wildlife journal?
Yes, I know if you can not find a favorable outlet
....go to amore obscure one so the peer review will be different.
Clint
Yes, I know if you can not find a favorable outlet
....go to amore obscure one so the peer review will be different.
Clint